Can't tell you how much I've enjoyed your reviews, playthroughs, and this comparison video. When the pandemic hit and retired from teaching, I returned to war games after nearly 50 yrs. away ( Vietnam, college, family/kids...). Your channel along with 5 or 6 others opened up the new world of games. Being an Eastern Front geek I eased into it with MMPs SCS games, then moved up to Konigsberg from Revolution. But my favorites now are Ukraine '43 and Stalingrad '42. I love Simonitch's design and system. I'd like to try EFS and OCS but I'm not sure I'm ready for the added complexity. Guess I'll have to re-watch your videos before getting getting up the courage to try The Third Winter! Anyway, keep up the great videos.
Thank you, that's great to hear! Yeah I love Ukraine '43 and Stalingrad '42. Have you had a look at Red Star Rising? It lies somewhere around the complexity of Stalingrad '42 but covers the whole East Front.
I started my gaming career with the first OCS game ever: Guderian's Blitzkrieg #1. The system has changed for the better over the years and is one of my favorite WW2 game series. One has to master the logistics or all carefully made plans will fall apart. Will I use this 1 SP to fire my artillery, or fuel a Panzer Division for the turn? Hard choices and decisions are required on almost anything. I have many of the small games like Tunisia and Sicily, both first versions, and the massive Guderian's Blitzkrieg #2 which runs from October 1941 until May 1943 - I have never been able to finish that one. Recently I played Baltic Gap which has the Germans defending for once, with the opportunity for counter attack later in the game. Thanks for the upload Nathan, take care :-)
Always wanted to learn more about these two systems. Honestly, I admire your ability to tackle games that are leaning toward the higher end of complexity.
Thanks mate! A lot of my comments on OCS were based on a mix of memory [of when I used to play it a fair bit], a recent 'dabble', and a re-read of the v.4.3 rules. I'm far from an experienced player, as many are.
This is an awesome way of understanding similar games, side by side comparisons! Love it. you can see just what suits to your individual tastes. The charts, overlays, very well done; systematic and clear! Thanks!
Both of these series do a great job in representing the decision making processes of "Where do I need to focus actions?" with the use of the supply systems. I'll take both of these series as excellent systems. Good Stuff nathan!!!
Wow this is just brilliant, Nathan. Your comparison vids are just brilliant. TLB v A Time for Trumpets were outstanding. As a result I took the opportune time to acquire TLB and sure with the mega MMP sale picked up The Greatest Day. I am diving into the deep end for sure.
UA-cam Hint: If you put a list of the timestamps in the description it'll actually split the video timeline up and people can jump to the relevant parts by clicking on the timestamp link - e.g.: 0:00 - intro 4:10 - Series Rules Consistency 4:35 - Map and Unit Scale (you can add this after the video goes up to and it should work)
Really nice comparison! I would largely agree with your assessments of both systems, but where you may not want to express a preference, I will. I have played Typhoon and Army Group South in EFS. I found the system to be dreadfully conventional. It felt like a game straight out of the 1970's, only with modern graphic design and the SoP "gimmick" (I don't mean to use gimmick pejoratively here, it's just for lack of a better word). OCS provides a much more detailed look at the operational level of combat. I hesitate to say OCS is more "complex", because the mechanics aren't that complicated. Where OCS gets its reputation for complexity is from the difficulty not in learning how to play it, but in learning how to play it WELL. OCS will give you the rope to hang yourself (I am speaking from experience), and if you don't appreciate the subtleties in the relatively straightforward mechanics, things will not end well for you. OCS requires planning and forethought to a greater extent than EFS. Depending on the player, this can either be a more rewarding experience or an intensely frustrating one. Just depends on what you want out of your games. EFS is more of a Design for Effect game, while OCS is more of a Design for Cause game. The asymmetric SoP in EFS forces players to play the Red Army differently than the Germans. Essentially, EFS uses different rules for the different armies and there is nothing the player can do about it. OCS, on the other hand, uses the same rules for both armies. Instead of showing the difference between the Red Army and the Heer through the SoP, it instead uses the Action Rating mechanic, supply and HQ availability, and the number of Reserve markers available to each side to show why they were different. EFS just tells the player (through its mechanics) that the Heer was different from the Red Army. In OCS, you can try to play the Red Army the same way you play the Germans, but you will not be successful. OCS shows you WHY the Red Army fought the way it did. And speaking of Action Rating, separating the quality of a unit from its combat power is one of the best innovations I've seen in gaming in a long, long time. This is not to say that OCS doesn't have its issues, because it does (and that's probably an entire video unto itself). But to sum it up, though, I guess I would say that OCS provides much more of a feel of running an operational level WWII campaign, while EFS feels much more like a game. There's nothing wrong with preferring EFS to OCS (I actually P500's AGC a few months back), but as an operational level system game I think OCS is the much better one. I'd love to see you do something similar to this video featuring Mark Simonitch's system as that is one I do not have any firsthand experience with. Keep up the great work!
Very well said, and I pretty much agree with everything you've said here! I agree with your view about EFS being 'dreadfully conventional'. Things like the mandatory attacks and movement rules seem a bit obsolete nowadays. I also agree with what you're saying about OCS mechanics and this is kind of what I was trying to reflect by talking about the 'learning journey'. A few people have asked for more info on Mark Simonitch's system and I think that'll have to be next!
I think that the SoP of EFS does a good job in presenting the respective capabilities available to the corps commanders. The Soviets simply could NOT do what the Germans did and the SoP presents that well. There are numerous examples during this period where the Soviets had a very difficult time coordinating counterattacks. If you have the same SoP, that changes drastically. Simple differences of efficiency ratings doesn't capture that. "Old" rules are not necessarily bad.
@@MrProsat No argument that the Soviets could not do what the Germans did, but that doesn't mean they didn't TRY to what the Germans did. For a long list of reasons, they failed (often spectacularly). Where EFS models this differential in capability through an asymmetrical SoP, OCS instead separates a unit's quality from its firepower by assigning it an Action Rating (AR). The Germans have a substantial AR advantage over the Red Army in OCS through 1942. This advantage does a great job in modelling the capabilities of each army, but in sometimes subtle ways. AR is used to determine the DRM for every attack's Surprise roll. And since surprise is easier to achieve during an Overrun attack than a Regular attack, the AR differential has a larger impact in these types of attacks. The AR differential also serves as a DRM to the combat resolution roll. So an army with mobile, high AR units will try to maximize the number of Overrun attacks it makes, compared to regular attacks (because of the increased chance of getting surprise, making the attack more effective). Conversely, an army operating with an AR disadvantage is going to try to avoid overrun attacks and focus instead on setting up Regular attacks. Not only is the chance of defender surprise lessened, but a Regular attack allows the attacker to barrage the defenders, hopefully disorganizing them (which halves their combat value, as well as lowering their AR by 1). The only way to inflict a DG (disorganized) result on a defender prior to an Overrun is by using a hip shoot with aircraft, and the Soviets in the pre-1943 time frame are not capable of hip shoots. Another subtle effect of an AR advantage is that by giving a greater chance for surprise column shifts and larger, positive DRM's to attack rolls, the likelihood of the attack resulting in Exploitation for the attackers is greater. Not only is the exploitation AR requirement lowered the more successful the attack, but the higher AR units are more likely to meet the exploitation requirements of any given attack. Exploitation then allows the qualifying units to move and attack again in the same turn, thus multiplying the capability of said units. The AR mechanism is a good example of the deceptiveness of the OCS design. What appears to be a simple difference in efficiency ratings on the surface, creates a ripple of nuanced effects as it interacts with other mechanisms resulting in an excellent model of the differing capabilities of the opponents at the operational level. The end result of both EFS and OCS is a German army that is more mobile and capable than the Red Army (as is appropriate for this time period of the war). They simply take two different paths to the same destination. However, I prefer systems that allow historical strategies and tactics to emerge organically from the system, rather than being dictated by the design. In OCS, the AR differentials between the Germans and Soviets require each army to be played differently in order to be successful. However, the system doesn't force a player to play that way. And there are times, for example in GB2 and Case Blue, where the Red Army CAN make attacks like the Germans and be successful (at least, in certain localized situations), which is something the EFS SoP doesn't allow for. I do agree that old rules are not necessarily bad rules. Some concepts, like ZOC's have stood the test of time rather well. OCS has ZOC's (although they are modified a bit). Other concepts haven't aged as well. Mandatory attacks is one of those. Of course, I didn't care for the mechanism even back in the 1970's when many (most?) games used it. Over the last 30-40 years the art of game design has advanced quite a bit. Designs have become more sophisticated (which does NOT necessarily mean more complex). EFS is a fine system (and a popular one). For me it just feels a little stale, and I prefer the model OCS provides. But I do think the hobby is better off for the existence of both designs, since different players are going want different things from their games.
@@thetabletopsedge Sir. I very much appreciate your reply and have an utter respect for your explanations onto why you appreciate OCS. My responses are not an effort to "win you over to EFS", but rather, to have a conversation on my take on wargames. I am a solitaire player. So my view on historical simulations is to present realism, perhaps even at the loss of "playability", in that one side is thoroughly constrained in what they can do - as per the game mechanics. To me, doctrine is extremely important, especially during the first 6 months of combat. Doctrine is the template that corps commanders will use, generally, in how they will operate. Thus, to me, trying to simulate Barbarossa SHOULD have an asynchronous SOP - AND abilities. You mention that you don't like EFS's SOP and that each side should suffer the results of trying. But doesn't OCS also utilize much the same idea in that the Soviets cannot Hip Shoot? So there are elements of this in OCS, as well. On the Mandatory attacks, again, I am viewing this from a higher level. STAVKA shall not be ignored! And so, the mechanism seems very fair - from a solitaire player's vantage - that the corps commander shall have to make some really silly attacks, because STAVKA SAID so. Later, of course, Hitler would also conduct such interference. But the idea stands here because that simply was the way it was for Soviet commanders in the field. I can imagine that two-player gamers will not like being dictated from the game rules. Unfortunately, Smolensk (OCS) was disappointing to me. This is one of my most favorite topics on the Eastern Front and I just didn't care for the idea of figuring out the perfect puzzle to commit supply points to move my panzers in the perfect manner to take Osha, etc. It seemed less of a wargame and more of a logistical puzzle. To each his own. Take care and thanks for your consideration. Joe
@@MrProsat From a solitaire perspective, I do think that OCS is a bit much (especially the bigger East Front games). There may be some solo players who disagree with me, but OCS requires a fairly deep and involved effort to play to a satisfying level. It's challenging enough to formulate a viable plan and then execute it in an opposed game of OCS, but to have to do that for both sides can feel more like work than a relaxing game. Also, the Fog of War elements of OCS make a solo experience a much less intense (and in many ways less satisfying) experience. I can definitely see where EFS would be preferable when one is looking for a fairly large scale, operational/strategic level Eastern Front game. As always, it's been interesting to hear your take on things. Cheers!
Some people say that the EFS is conventional like it's a handicap. I don't see it that way, I don't think 'modern' systems are better because they are newer. I do like OCS but I enjoy EFS a bit more. D When I play EFS the play seems to move faster and smoother than when I play OCS. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy OCS and think it's a great system too. The only reason I even bring this up is I have seen more and more disparaging remarks regarding wargames from the 70's and 80's . There seems to by a prevailing thought that newer and different equates to being better. I think every game should be judged on what it tries to accomplish,not how new and different it's mechanics are. Anyway just my 2 cents, maybe I am biased because I started playing wargzmes in 1970, I hope nobody takes my comments as an attack on modern systems,I don't have any agenda just 50 years of playing wargames passionately.
Yeah I hear what you're saying Robert; I think I've been guilty of this a few time. There are two aspects of EFS that, if I had my way, I would change. They are the movement rules and the mandatory attack requirements. I don't think they've very fun/enjoyable/interesting rules, I feel that they're elements that are mostly present in older games, and 'newer'/'modern' game designers have largely done away with them. They're the only two little quibbles I have with EFS, and they're relatively minor [and even then, I'm using the optional movement rules anyway]. That aside, I have no problem with any aspect of the EFS system, and I love how smoothly it runs! At the same time, to be fair, OCS also uses at least one older element too that I'm not fond of. The terrain based CRT [instead of column shifts] also feels like an unpopular element of some 1970s/1980s game design. Most games just advise 'terrain shifts' for those different terrain types [which is essentially what it does]. I think this comes down to my preference for a 'clean' CRT where I can quickly roll and lookup a result.
@@WiseGuyHistory I agree completely with the movement rules. It does seem cumbersome and I definitely will be using the optional rules. I see the mandatory attacks a bit differently. To me it means that attacks need to be supported. If you are attacking a point in a defense line you need supporting "pinning" attacks on the flanks to tie down the enemy and allow a breakthrough. I guess it's how you look at it. I agree with your OCS comments too. By the way you do a fantastic job and I really like the review and especially the system/game comparisons.
This is another great Wise Guy History side -by-side comparison video review. Despite the fact that both of these games sound like way too much effort for my lifestyle, these Wise Guy comparison video essays are so well done, that I find myself tricked into watching the whole review even though I have no interest in buying or playing either game. I think this happens because as a game designer myself, I'm fascinated by his focus on different design approaches to the same historical events. Although he tries his best to be evenhanded, Wise Guy gives us enough information that we come away knowing which game we prefer and why it sound more in line with our personal bias. Wise Guy consistently delivers the best video reviews available. In my opinion, he deserves a wargame industry award for Best Wargame Reviewer. I just wish he'd occasionally turn his attention to less expensive, more compact, and shorter playing-time wargames, which are the games I enjoy most even though I'm now retired and I have a lot of game and historical study time available.
The way I describe these two in my videos is....do you want to move little bullet counters around and prepare each attack and worry about miniscule supply? (OCS) or do you want more movement oriented operational game that decides to showcase weather and the differences between the two armies (EFS). Tough call. Lately I have been more into OCS. I guess because I am waiting still for the EFS reprints. Im starting to really dig OCS though but i HATE HATE HATE game specific rules. I know it has to be done due to the subject matter (especially Hungarian Rhapsody) but I hate it
Great comparison & video! I'm not too surprised that OCS is more complex as I'm currently learning MMP's "Canadian Crucible" which is the hardest game I've tried to learn! I think it's a very good game, but a steep learning curve with lots of exceptions. I'm guessing that GMT games are generally easier to grasp.
I think GMT has more variety [ie. a broader spectrum of games], so you'll certainly find some easier games, but they still do some heavy titles. Whereas in general I'd suggest MMP focuses more on the heavier end of the spectrum, generally speaking...
Very good considering the subject. I don't think you emphasised the difference in combat resolution - OCS unit Action Ratings (unit quality) are key to combat outcomes and then there is the possibility of Surprise causing huge unplanned column shifts - again more likely to occur if there is significant difference in the respective side's Action Ratings. Alongside supply, this is the key characteristic of OCS not found in other comparable systems. You might also have emphasised a similarity between the two systems, namely a player might have the rules down ok but learning to play well is pretty difficult. More true of OCS I think as learning to make the sort of rapid advances in Russia that the Germans made historically requires a lot of practice in terms of positioning SPs, HQs and often Extenders. But again, great video and big respect for having the ambition to do it, especially after the rather sharp reaction of the War & Peace brigade following your comparison video with Nations at Arms!
Yeah you're right, thanks Mark! I only mentioned the ARs very briefly and should have given it more attention. I talk a bit more about the rules and learning curve towards the end as it's one of the big factors between the two.
Bravo! If you're going to invest the time in either of these series (which I intend to do), then you want a summary of the key differences, and you have done a magnificent job. You organized well, kept the narrative moving, and focused on the big issues / areas. Despite the additional complexity, I think I am going with the OCS series. I always like a game in which both sides are treated structurally the same way, and in which whatever differences in capabilities exist are handled within the conceptual frame of reference. (As a game designer myself, I always strive for this.) Hence, although I appreciate why the EFS did their sequence of play the way they did, I strongly prefer the more uniform treatment of the two sides in OCS. Supply complexity? Well, I'll give it a go and see what happens....
Yea, GOSS would be an interesting game to compare. But not to OCS or EFS. Something more along the grand tactical level. GOSS tries to do too much, making you be the regimental commander (allocating company level assets for attacks) all the way to the theater commander (allocating logistics at the corps level or running the air war).
I think you said both games have ZOCs. Which is true but, a minor "big" difference in OCS to most games is that ZOCs don't affect mech and leg movement units.
I much prefer the Simonitch series. They're medium complexity, but also feel a lot more 'modern' in terms of rules and gameplay. They're smoother to play and a lot more 'fun'.
I would say they’re very different games. I feel like Simonitch is 10k feet higher and less detailed, perhaps more abstractions. I prefer Simonitch mainly for simplicity compare to both EFS and OCS
Very well done. I think both of these types are more than I want to deal with playing solitaire. I would like to think I could handle them but ....I don't mind some difficulty, but I don't want something so hard or Unclear, that I don't ever play it. Or even try to play it. Also can't keep throwing money at games that are "new or different", no more ' try it you'll like it' (it's what I keep telling myself to do). That's also why I am probably not going to buy any more games that are pre-1930+-. Going to stick with mostly WW2 like Mark SIMONITCH'S games & similar types and the solitaire games like The Hunter's and The Hunted and NFA. Also SCS are excellent games, got four n that's enough.
I have also come to the fact that I have games I need to cull from the herd, from my collection. 10-15 at least at first. Sorry for running my mouth off here It's not all about me. You do a great job. you are extremely appreciated and I thoroughly enjoy watching your videos and the ones that hexy does and Moe and Kev and Todd and Hethwill and so many others. I'm probably would have abandoned the hobby again if it were not for everyone's hard work making great videos.
Thanks for the video comparison, I have eyed the EFS for a long time but since I already have OCS and my brain capacity and time to play are limited, I have to let it go *facepalm*.
Thanks for the excellent comparison video😁 I have actually been looking for an alternative to an OCS (a game with bigger logistical footprint then your typical wargame), GMT's series would look interesting but unfortunately I'm not a big fan of East Front WW2😐
I think Van Borries has also done games with similar systems on North Africa (L2) and the British invasion of the Levant by Legion games. I don't know if the systems are identical though
Generally the full campaigns for most of these titles take up about 4' x 6' of space, but every title here has numerous smaller scenarios. In terms of OCS, there are a few good 'compact' title, like Reluctant Enemies and Burma, and they're both good introductions to the OCS rules too as they're relatively lighter/easier with low counter density.
Maybe you can make a video explaining how do you approach learning of such a big and complex systems? You seem to be able to learn and digest new systems very quickly. Do you read all the rules and only then setup the game? Or do you start playing and read the rules on the fly? Also very important - are you single? In my case being married poses a significant hindrance to how many new games systems l can learn. Should I get a divorce? Thank you.
Great idea! Yeah, gonna do something like this ASAP. In short, I ALWAYS try to setup a game. Being able to look at things as I'm reading is a huge help. I'll often load up a vassal module, scan around, look at charts and move pieces, as I read various sections of the rulebook. I also tend to shift between similar games. So lately I've played BCS, OCS [lightly], EFS, Stalingrad '42, Ukraine '43, France '40, etc...and they're all relatively similar systems. So it makes it relatively easy to shift from one game to another. Also, when playing one game, I'm always trying to learn another [but usually only learning one at a time]. I'm married with kids, which is why the vast bulk of my videos are done at night when the house is quiet! I get a LOT of gaming done in those evenings!
Nah, I've preordered the one I don't have [AGC], but pretty happy to use the older maps/counters for the other titles. Typhoon is the only title really in need of a counter upgrade, and I may get that, but the others don't really need anything.
![Game Comparison: 'Last Blitzkrieg' [2016] and 'A Time For Trumpets [2020]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N8O4E-C3qWY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Game Comparison: 'Last Blitzkrieg' [2016] and 'A Time For Trumpets [2020]](/img/tr.png)
Can't tell you how much I've enjoyed your reviews, playthroughs, and this comparison video. When the pandemic hit and retired from teaching, I returned to war games after nearly 50 yrs. away ( Vietnam, college, family/kids...). Your channel along with 5 or 6 others opened up the new world of games. Being an Eastern Front geek I eased into it with MMPs SCS games, then moved up to Konigsberg from Revolution. But my favorites now are Ukraine '43 and Stalingrad '42. I love Simonitch's design and system. I'd like to try EFS and OCS but I'm not sure I'm ready for the added complexity. Guess I'll have to re-watch your videos before getting getting up the courage to try The Third Winter! Anyway, keep up the great videos.
Thank you, that's great to hear! Yeah I love Ukraine '43 and Stalingrad '42. Have you had a look at Red Star Rising? It lies somewhere around the complexity of Stalingrad '42 but covers the whole East Front.
I started my gaming career with the first OCS game ever: Guderian's Blitzkrieg #1. The system has changed for the better over the years and is one of my favorite WW2 game series. One has to master the logistics or all carefully made plans will fall apart. Will I use this 1 SP to fire my artillery, or fuel a Panzer Division for the turn? Hard choices and decisions are required on almost anything. I have many of the small games like Tunisia and Sicily, both first versions, and the massive Guderian's Blitzkrieg #2 which runs from October 1941 until May 1943 - I have never been able to finish that one. Recently I played Baltic Gap which has the Germans defending for once, with the opportunity for counter attack later in the game. Thanks for the upload Nathan, take care :-)
Always wanted to learn more about these two systems. Honestly, I admire your ability to tackle games that are leaning toward the higher end of complexity.
Thanks mate! A lot of my comments on OCS were based on a mix of memory [of when I used to play it a fair bit], a recent 'dabble', and a re-read of the v.4.3 rules. I'm far from an experienced player, as many are.
This is an awesome way of understanding similar games, side by side comparisons! Love it. you can see just what suits to your individual tastes. The charts, overlays, very well done; systematic and clear! Thanks!
Both of these series do a great job in representing the decision making processes of "Where do I need to focus actions?" with the use of the supply systems. I'll take both of these series as excellent systems. Good Stuff nathan!!!
Wow this is just brilliant, Nathan. Your comparison vids are just brilliant. TLB v A Time for Trumpets were outstanding. As a result I took the opportune time to acquire TLB and sure with the mega MMP sale picked up The Greatest Day. I am diving into the deep end for sure.
Great choices David! There's a lot of gameplay there, and that's great value for money!
Thanks for doing this video - it's exactly what I've been hoping for as I have both series on the shelf but (whispers) haven't played them yet.
UA-cam Hint: If you put a list of the timestamps in the description it'll actually split the video timeline up and people can jump to the relevant parts by clicking on the timestamp link - e.g.:
0:00 - intro
4:10 - Series Rules Consistency
4:35 - Map and Unit Scale
(you can add this after the video goes up to and it should work)
Oooh huge thanks!
Really nice comparison! I would largely agree with your assessments of both systems, but where you may not want to express a preference, I will. I have played Typhoon and Army Group South in EFS. I found the system to be dreadfully conventional. It felt like a game straight out of the 1970's, only with modern graphic design and the SoP "gimmick" (I don't mean to use gimmick pejoratively here, it's just for lack of a better word). OCS provides a much more detailed look at the operational level of combat. I hesitate to say OCS is more "complex", because the mechanics aren't that complicated. Where OCS gets its reputation for complexity is from the difficulty not in learning how to play it, but in learning how to play it WELL. OCS will give you the rope to hang yourself (I am speaking from experience), and if you don't appreciate the subtleties in the relatively straightforward mechanics, things will not end well for you. OCS requires planning and forethought to a greater extent than EFS. Depending on the player, this can either be a more rewarding experience or an intensely frustrating one. Just depends on what you want out of your games.
EFS is more of a Design for Effect game, while OCS is more of a Design for Cause game. The asymmetric SoP in EFS forces players to play the Red Army differently than the Germans. Essentially, EFS uses different rules for the different armies and there is nothing the player can do about it. OCS, on the other hand, uses the same rules for both armies. Instead of showing the difference between the Red Army and the Heer through the SoP, it instead uses the Action Rating mechanic, supply and HQ availability, and the number of Reserve markers available to each side to show why they were different. EFS just tells the player (through its mechanics) that the Heer was different from the Red Army. In OCS, you can try to play the Red Army the same way you play the Germans, but you will not be successful. OCS shows you WHY the Red Army fought the way it did. And speaking of Action Rating, separating the quality of a unit from its combat power is one of the best innovations I've seen in gaming in a long, long time.
This is not to say that OCS doesn't have its issues, because it does (and that's probably an entire video unto itself). But to sum it up, though, I guess I would say that OCS provides much more of a feel of running an operational level WWII campaign, while EFS feels much more like a game. There's nothing wrong with preferring EFS to OCS (I actually P500's AGC a few months back), but as an operational level system game I think OCS is the much better one.
I'd love to see you do something similar to this video featuring Mark Simonitch's system as that is one I do not have any firsthand experience with. Keep up the great work!
Very well said, and I pretty much agree with everything you've said here! I agree with your view about EFS being 'dreadfully conventional'. Things like the mandatory attacks and movement rules seem a bit obsolete nowadays. I also agree with what you're saying about OCS mechanics and this is kind of what I was trying to reflect by talking about the 'learning journey'. A few people have asked for more info on Mark Simonitch's system and I think that'll have to be next!
I think that the SoP of EFS does a good job in presenting the respective capabilities available to the corps commanders. The Soviets simply could NOT do what the Germans did and the SoP presents that well. There are numerous examples during this period where the Soviets had a very difficult time coordinating counterattacks. If you have the same SoP, that changes drastically. Simple differences of efficiency ratings doesn't capture that.
"Old" rules are not necessarily bad.
@@MrProsat No argument that the Soviets could not do what the Germans did, but that doesn't mean they didn't TRY to what the Germans did. For a long list of reasons, they failed (often spectacularly). Where EFS models this differential in capability through an asymmetrical SoP, OCS instead separates a unit's quality from its firepower by assigning it an Action Rating (AR). The Germans have a substantial AR advantage over the Red Army in OCS through 1942. This advantage does a great job in modelling the capabilities of each army, but in sometimes subtle ways.
AR is used to determine the DRM for every attack's Surprise roll. And since surprise is easier to achieve during an Overrun attack than a Regular attack, the AR differential has a larger impact in these types of attacks. The AR differential also serves as a DRM to the combat resolution roll. So an army with mobile, high AR units will try to maximize the number of Overrun attacks it makes, compared to regular attacks (because of the increased chance of getting surprise, making the attack more effective). Conversely, an army operating with an AR disadvantage is going to try to avoid overrun attacks and focus instead on setting up Regular attacks. Not only is the chance of defender surprise lessened, but a Regular attack allows the attacker to barrage the defenders, hopefully disorganizing them (which halves their combat value, as well as lowering their AR by 1). The only way to inflict a DG (disorganized) result on a defender prior to an Overrun is by using a hip shoot with aircraft, and the Soviets in the pre-1943 time frame are not capable of hip shoots.
Another subtle effect of an AR advantage is that by giving a greater chance for surprise column shifts and larger, positive DRM's to attack rolls, the likelihood of the attack resulting in Exploitation for the attackers is greater. Not only is the exploitation AR requirement lowered the more successful the attack, but the higher AR units are more likely to meet the exploitation requirements of any given attack. Exploitation then allows the qualifying units to move and attack again in the same turn, thus multiplying the capability of said units. The AR mechanism is a good example of the deceptiveness of the OCS design. What appears to be a simple difference in efficiency ratings on the surface, creates a ripple of nuanced effects as it interacts with other mechanisms resulting in an excellent model of the differing capabilities of the opponents at the operational level.
The end result of both EFS and OCS is a German army that is more mobile and capable than the Red Army (as is appropriate for this time period of the war). They simply take two different paths to the same destination. However, I prefer systems that allow historical strategies and tactics to emerge organically from the system, rather than being dictated by the design. In OCS, the AR differentials between the Germans and Soviets require each army to be played differently in order to be successful. However, the system doesn't force a player to play that way. And there are times, for example in GB2 and Case Blue, where the Red Army CAN make attacks like the Germans and be successful (at least, in certain localized situations), which is something the EFS SoP doesn't allow for.
I do agree that old rules are not necessarily bad rules. Some concepts, like ZOC's have stood the test of time rather well. OCS has ZOC's (although they are modified a bit). Other concepts haven't aged as well. Mandatory attacks is one of those. Of course, I didn't care for the mechanism even back in the 1970's when many (most?) games used it. Over the last 30-40 years the art of game design has advanced quite a bit. Designs have become more sophisticated (which does NOT necessarily mean more complex). EFS is a fine system (and a popular one). For me it just feels a little stale, and I prefer the model OCS provides. But I do think the hobby is better off for the existence of both designs, since different players are going want different things from their games.
@@thetabletopsedge Sir. I very much appreciate your reply and have an utter respect for your explanations onto why you appreciate OCS. My responses are not an effort to "win you over to EFS", but rather, to have a conversation on my take on wargames.
I am a solitaire player. So my view on historical simulations is to present realism, perhaps even at the loss of "playability", in that one side is thoroughly constrained in what they can do - as per the game mechanics. To me, doctrine is extremely important, especially during the first 6 months of combat. Doctrine is the template that corps commanders will use, generally, in how they will operate. Thus, to me, trying to simulate Barbarossa SHOULD have an asynchronous SOP - AND abilities. You mention that you don't like EFS's SOP and that each side should suffer the results of trying. But doesn't OCS also utilize much the same idea in that the Soviets cannot Hip Shoot? So there are elements of this in OCS, as well.
On the Mandatory attacks, again, I am viewing this from a higher level. STAVKA shall not be ignored! And so, the mechanism seems very fair - from a solitaire player's vantage - that the corps commander shall have to make some really silly attacks, because STAVKA SAID so. Later, of course, Hitler would also conduct such interference. But the idea stands here because that simply was the way it was for Soviet commanders in the field. I can imagine that two-player gamers will not like being dictated from the game rules.
Unfortunately, Smolensk (OCS) was disappointing to me. This is one of my most favorite topics on the Eastern Front and I just didn't care for the idea of figuring out the perfect puzzle to commit supply points to move my panzers in the perfect manner to take Osha, etc. It seemed less of a wargame and more of a logistical puzzle. To each his own. Take care and thanks for your consideration.
Joe
@@MrProsat From a solitaire perspective, I do think that OCS is a bit much (especially the bigger East Front games). There may be some solo players who disagree with me, but OCS requires a fairly deep and involved effort to play to a satisfying level. It's challenging enough to formulate a viable plan and then execute it in an opposed game of OCS, but to have to do that for both sides can feel more like work than a relaxing game. Also, the Fog of War elements of OCS make a solo experience a much less intense (and in many ways less satisfying) experience. I can definitely see where EFS would be preferable when one is looking for a fairly large scale, operational/strategic level Eastern Front game.
As always, it's been interesting to hear your take on things. Cheers!
Some people say that the EFS is conventional like it's a handicap. I don't see it that way, I don't think 'modern' systems are better because they are newer. I do like OCS but I enjoy EFS a bit more.
D
When I play EFS the play seems to move faster and smoother than when I play OCS. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy OCS and think it's a great system too.
The only reason I even bring this up is I have seen more and more disparaging remarks regarding wargames from the 70's and 80's . There seems to by a prevailing thought that newer and different equates to being better. I think every game should be judged on what it tries to accomplish,not how new and different it's mechanics are.
Anyway just my 2 cents, maybe I am biased because I started playing wargzmes in 1970, I hope nobody takes my comments as an attack on modern systems,I don't have any agenda just 50 years of playing wargames passionately.
Yeah I hear what you're saying Robert; I think I've been guilty of this a few time. There are two aspects of EFS that, if I had my way, I would change. They are the movement rules and the mandatory attack requirements. I don't think they've very fun/enjoyable/interesting rules, I feel that they're elements that are mostly present in older games, and 'newer'/'modern' game designers have largely done away with them. They're the only two little quibbles I have with EFS, and they're relatively minor [and even then, I'm using the optional movement rules anyway]. That aside, I have no problem with any aspect of the EFS system, and I love how smoothly it runs!
At the same time, to be fair, OCS also uses at least one older element too that I'm not fond of. The terrain based CRT [instead of column shifts] also feels like an unpopular element of some 1970s/1980s game design. Most games just advise 'terrain shifts' for those different terrain types [which is essentially what it does]. I think this comes down to my preference for a 'clean' CRT where I can quickly roll and lookup a result.
@@WiseGuyHistory I agree completely with the movement rules. It does seem cumbersome and I definitely will be using the optional rules. I see the mandatory attacks a bit differently. To me it means that attacks need to be supported. If you are attacking a point in a defense line you need supporting "pinning" attacks on the flanks to tie down the enemy and allow a breakthrough. I guess it's how you look at it.
I agree with your OCS comments too.
By the way you do a fantastic job and I really like the review and especially the system/game comparisons.
This is another great Wise Guy History side -by-side comparison video review. Despite the fact that both of these games sound like way too much effort for my lifestyle, these Wise Guy comparison video essays are so well done, that I find myself tricked into watching the whole review even though I have no interest in buying or playing either game. I think this happens because as a game designer myself, I'm fascinated by his focus on different design approaches to the same historical events. Although he tries his best to be evenhanded, Wise Guy gives us enough information that we come away knowing which game we prefer and why it sound more in line with our personal bias. Wise Guy consistently delivers the best video reviews available. In my opinion, he deserves a wargame industry award for Best Wargame Reviewer. I just wish he'd occasionally turn his attention to less expensive, more compact, and shorter playing-time wargames, which are the games I enjoy most even though I'm now retired and I have a lot of game and historical study time available.
Thanks Leslie; I really appreciate it. Hoping to get back into these over the coming weeks.
The way I describe these two in my videos is....do you want to move little bullet counters around and prepare each attack and worry about miniscule supply? (OCS) or do you want more movement oriented operational game that decides to showcase weather and the differences between the two armies (EFS). Tough call. Lately I have been more into OCS. I guess because I am waiting still for the EFS reprints. Im starting to really dig OCS though but i HATE HATE HATE game specific rules. I know it has to be done due to the subject matter (especially Hungarian Rhapsody) but I hate it
Yeah I should have given more attention to those Weather effects, it plays a key role and slipped my mind!
I enjoyed EFS better because it lets you focus on operational combat, rather than bean-counting.
You are creating some excellent content. Thank you! I particularly like these “comparison” videos. This one and your GBACW v. LOB video.
Thanks Clint! I enjoy doing them.
Nicely done. Interesting comparisons. Enjoying watching you play EFS. It would be great to watch you play an OCS game. Hopefully you will one day.
Great comparison & video!
I'm not too surprised that OCS is more complex as I'm currently learning MMP's "Canadian Crucible" which is the hardest game I've tried to learn!
I think it's a very good game, but a steep learning curve with lots of exceptions.
I'm guessing that GMT games are generally easier to grasp.
I think GMT has more variety [ie. a broader spectrum of games], so you'll certainly find some easier games, but they still do some heavy titles. Whereas in general I'd suggest MMP focuses more on the heavier end of the spectrum, generally speaking...
Well explained, the Ocs ar system can be quite fustrating if the attacker has low ratings like the allies in Tunisia for example.
Many may be unaware that EFS and OCS are disgruntled spawns from the Europa game series.
Very good considering the subject. I don't think you emphasised the difference in combat resolution - OCS unit Action Ratings (unit quality) are key to combat outcomes and then there is the possibility of Surprise causing huge unplanned column shifts - again more likely to occur if there is significant difference in the respective side's Action Ratings. Alongside supply, this is the key characteristic of OCS not found in other comparable systems. You might also have emphasised a similarity between the two systems, namely a player might have the rules down ok but learning to play well is pretty difficult. More true of OCS I think as learning to make the sort of rapid advances in Russia that the Germans made historically requires a lot of practice in terms of positioning SPs, HQs and often Extenders. But again, great video and big respect for having the ambition to do it, especially after the rather sharp reaction of the War & Peace brigade following your comparison video with Nations at Arms!
Yeah you're right, thanks Mark! I only mentioned the ARs very briefly and should have given it more attention. I talk a bit more about the rules and learning curve towards the end as it's one of the big factors between the two.
Bravo! If you're going to invest the time in either of these series (which I intend to do), then you want a summary of the key differences, and you have done a magnificent job. You organized well, kept the narrative moving, and focused on the big issues / areas.
Despite the additional complexity, I think I am going with the OCS series. I always like a game in which both sides are treated structurally the same way, and in which whatever differences in capabilities exist are handled within the conceptual frame of reference. (As a game designer myself, I always strive for this.) Hence, although I appreciate why the EFS did their sequence of play the way they did, I strongly prefer the more uniform treatment of the two sides in OCS. Supply complexity? Well, I'll give it a go and see what happens....
Excellent video! Looking forward to more Game Series Comparisons in the future!
Now only missing GOSS and "Winter Storm Campaign series" :)
Yea, GOSS would be an interesting game to compare. But not to OCS or EFS. Something more along the grand tactical level. GOSS tries to do too much, making you be the regimental commander (allocating company level assets for attacks) all the way to the theater commander (allocating logistics at the corps level or running the air war).
I am getting back into hex and counter wargaming after a 30 year absence. I wish MMP would reprint their OCS games that are out of print.
Whatabout your insight to OCS vs BCS next?
Great video and well done.
Thank you very much!
I think you said both games have ZOCs. Which is true but, a minor "big" difference in OCS to most games is that ZOCs don't affect mech and leg movement units.
Ah good point, thanks!
I enjoy your comparison videos. I hate to be the guy who's never satisfied, but do you have any thoughts about EFS vs. Simonitch east front games?
I was wondering the same thing! Thanks for the videos, wonderful to see someone who knows enough to compare them all -
I much prefer the Simonitch series. They're medium complexity, but also feel a lot more 'modern' in terms of rules and gameplay. They're smoother to play and a lot more 'fun'.
I would say they’re very different games. I feel like Simonitch is 10k feet higher and less detailed, perhaps more abstractions. I prefer Simonitch mainly for simplicity compare to both EFS and OCS
Very well done. I think both of these types are more than I want to deal with playing solitaire. I would like to think I could handle them but ....I don't mind some difficulty, but I don't want something so hard or Unclear, that I don't ever play it. Or even try to play it.
Also can't keep throwing money at games that are "new or different", no more ' try it you'll like it' (it's what I keep telling myself to do).
That's also why I am probably not going to buy any more games that are pre-1930+-. Going to stick with mostly WW2 like Mark SIMONITCH'S games & similar types and the solitaire games like The Hunter's and The Hunted and NFA. Also SCS are excellent games, got four n that's enough.
I have also come to the fact that I have games I need to cull from the herd, from my collection. 10-15 at least at first.
Sorry for running my mouth off here It's not all about me.
You do a great job. you are extremely appreciated and I thoroughly enjoy watching your videos and the ones that hexy does and Moe and Kev and Todd and Hethwill and so many others.
I'm probably would have abandoned the hobby again if it were not for everyone's hard work making great videos.
Yeah there's a lot of value in the Simonitch series, it's my preference too!
@@WiseGuyHistory hi, which title u recommend for Simonitch? Want to learn his light game first 😀
@@wallacezhen0423 For light games, I'd recommend France '40. You basically get two games in one and they're both relatively short and focused.
@@WiseGuyHistory thank you for recommendations 👍👍
Very informative. Thank you
Thanks for the video comparison, I have eyed the EFS for a long time but since I already have OCS and my brain capacity and time to play are limited, I have to let it go *facepalm*.
I think that's a good move; they do very similar things.
Thanks for the excellent comparison video😁 I have actually been looking for an alternative to an OCS (a game with bigger logistical footprint then your typical wargame), GMT's series would look interesting but unfortunately I'm not a big fan of East Front WW2😐
I think Van Borries has also done games with similar systems on North Africa (L2) and the British invasion of the Levant by Legion games. I don't know if the systems are identical though
@@davidheath4171 Thanks, will do some research😁
Excellent video thanks.
I love monsters
Oh wow, both these series sound great! At the risk of sounding like a complete noob, are any of the games suitable for a limited table space? Thanks
Generally the full campaigns for most of these titles take up about 4' x 6' of space, but every title here has numerous smaller scenarios. In terms of OCS, there are a few good 'compact' title, like Reluctant Enemies and Burma, and they're both good introductions to the OCS rules too as they're relatively lighter/easier with low counter density.
@@WiseGuyHistory that's great, thank you. Massive games indeed
👍👍👍
Maybe you can make a video explaining how do you approach learning of such a big and complex systems? You seem to be able to learn and digest new systems very quickly. Do you read all the rules and only then setup the game? Or do you start playing and read the rules on the fly? Also very important - are you single? In my case being married poses a significant hindrance to how many new games systems l can learn. Should I get a divorce? Thank you.
Great idea! Yeah, gonna do something like this ASAP. In short, I ALWAYS try to setup a game. Being able to look at things as I'm reading is a huge help. I'll often load up a vassal module, scan around, look at charts and move pieces, as I read various sections of the rulebook. I also tend to shift between similar games. So lately I've played BCS, OCS [lightly], EFS, Stalingrad '42, Ukraine '43, France '40, etc...and they're all relatively similar systems. So it makes it relatively easy to shift from one game to another. Also, when playing one game, I'm always trying to learn another [but usually only learning one at a time]. I'm married with kids, which is why the vast bulk of my videos are done at night when the house is quiet! I get a LOT of gaming done in those evenings!
@@WiseGuyHistory great info, thank you! I'm also happy to know that a divorce is probably not the way to move forward!
do you think you will P500 all the reprints of EFS?
Nah, I've preordered the one I don't have [AGC], but pretty happy to use the older maps/counters for the other titles. Typhoon is the only title really in need of a counter upgrade, and I may get that, but the others don't really need anything.