Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918)

[Magpius]

Creating other TOE would not be too difficult.
if you can use notepad, then the various .csv files change the behaviour.
Then its only a matter of tweaking the look.
If CEAW can bring out a 19th C. Napoleon and WW1 flavour game.
Then so could this.

[doomtrader]

I would like this post not to be treated as something official. Rather as asking you what you would like to see in such game. What are your expectations? What would make this game worth to play for all of you? What would be the coolest feature for such game, and what is ‘must be there’ for you?
Western front was pretty static, but on the East, it was moving back and forth, and after the Soviet Revolution happened it turned into a mess.

It is of course possible to create such game, and using the map known from Time of Fury would definitely speed up the whole process. If there is somebody who likes the era and would like to involve into the development process a little deeper than posting at the forum, let me know.

Anyway, for now I need a feedback, that there is a demand for such title.

[gwgardner]

One restriction in ToF is player-built fortifications. In a WWI game, you would have to allow for dynamic player creation of trenches and fortifications, AND you would have to do it in such a way as to recreate that difference between western and eastern fronts that you mentioned.

In other words, you would have to have the proper game mechanics that would allow a player to build trenches/fortifications, but also to recreate the conditions/tactics whereby that trench mechanism would not everywhere on the map be the best thing for a player to do.

I hope I have been somewhat clear.

[gwgardner]

There would have to be a gas-attack feature in the game, including all the vagaries of it, dependency on proper weather, possibility of it back-firing ....

[gwgardner]

The new game would be a good time to implement country-turn-based events, and get rid of inter-turn events.

[Magpius]

GW nailed it.

[nate25]

I can't stress divisional level units enough, IMO. Another corps level WW1 game would be a NO GO for me.

Also, NATO symbology, not 3D type units. Make it look like a proper serious wargame, not something that looks like it could have been a console game.

Just one man's 2 cents worth. [:'(]

[gwgardner]

Yes, on both points, but I would like to see corps HQs instead of leaders.

ORIGINAL: nate25

I can't stress divisional level units enough, IMO. Another corps level WW1 game would be a NO GO for me.

Also, NATO symbology, not 3D type units. Make it look like a proper serious wargame, not something that looks like it could have been a console game.

Just one man's 2 cents worth. [:'(]

[gwgardner]

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.

[JLPOWELL]

I would second that...
Also without armor or air power (some air power for spotting may be useful for the game but nothing like WW2 effects) breaking static lines will need another mechanism (of course breaking the static lines was and should be hard, but not impossible) Buildup of ammunition reserves for 'pushes'.

IMO the game would need to be reworked extensively to be worthwhile. An elaborate mod would't work at least for me.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.

[nate25]

+1 on gwgardner's and JLPOWELL's points.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: nate25

I can't stress divisional level units enough, IMO. Another corps level WW1 game would be a NO GO for me.

Also, NATO symbology, not 3D type units. Make it look like a proper serious wargame, not something that looks like it could have been a console game.

Just one man's 2 cents worth. [:'(]

Warspite1

I'd echo nate's comments. Divisional level would be great. NATO symbols are a must too. Tiller's games give you the option so presumably it is easy to provide options if people do not like these symbols; but for me they are a must. Other must have's? The naval war must be represented with individual counters. If World In Flames can do it then I'm sure it can be done here.

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.

That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: Josh

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.

That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

Why do you think stacking is so cool?

[gwgardner]

The front in the West at times had a very high density of troops. Much more so than can be represented by the current ToF style 1 corps per hex.

[welk]

A alternate way for a WW1 game could be that : no stacking, but choice when attacking :

1-Normal attack (the unit attacks with his own strengh)
2-Massive rupture attack : strengh of attack is strengh of attacker unit + % of strengh of neighbour units (losses apply to attacker unit and neighbour, as % of participation)

By "neighbour units", I mean that : all units that are neighbour of attacker, even if they are not in direct contact with attacked unit. This system could allow to simulate the massive rupture attacks in WW1 and the use of "rear reserves" during these attacks.


The strengh of defenseur would be that : strengh of attacked unit + % of strengh of neighbour units (but in this case, only units that are also in contact with attacker unit)

concerned % neighbour units for attacker strengh would be affected by x 1
concerned % neighbour units for defenser strengh would be affected by x 0.5

The difference between these massive rupture attack and the "normal attacks" would be a special cost in PP (Arty preparation, logistic, etc) and the risk of very very heavy losses for the attacker. The gain of such attacks would be the possible result = heavy dammage for ennemy attacked unit and (perhaps) retreat = rupture of front

This system, without needing a stacking system, would simulate 2 important things in WW1 : density of troops and massive rupture attacks during great offensives. It could be implemented, I think, without heavy difficulties in the actual ToF engine.


Edit : This system may seem curious, but some aspects of it it were used by the old Third Reich PC for the "exploitation attacks" phase, and it worked fine

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

ORIGINAL: Josh

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.

That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

Why do you think stacking is so cool?

Not necessarily "cool", let me put it this way; I've played my share of wargames where you can't stack units, from the original "Panzer General", its sequels and its latest reincarnation "Panzer Corps" and the "Strategic Command" series, and so on. But once you get used to the option of stacking your units I find (and that's my opinion ofcourse) hard to go back. Doesn't make these games worse, the SC series by Battlefront, are great games. No doubt about that. But to my mind stacking feels more "natural". WitE, TOAW, ATG all allow stacking, and they happen to be my favorites too. I've certainly looked at ToF, and it has everything I like in a game such as production, politics, events and a broad scope of scenarios. It adds a huge "what-if" factor, sacrificing historicity at the same time which is okay with me.
So in short, stacking to me feels more fluid and natural.

[doomtrader]

Instead of stacking you have got:
merging
splitting
upgrading
swapping

[Grimnirsson]

As for the name, Paths of Glory

There's a well known board wargame/consim by Ted Ricer with that name, could cause confusion, just sayin'

[JLPOWELL]

Regarding stacking the existing simplicity is a plus overall. Stacking ground units would make the game much more cumbersome and clutter what is a pretty clean design. (IMO the land combat is the strongest element of ToF)

Perhaps air units could stack with land units however, also air units should have no defense vrs ground units (but not be destroyed either take a hit and rebase perhaps to the force pool ground units overrunning air units strikes me as pretty unlikely as does air units defending vrs ground attack. In a PBEM game I am playing BattleVonWar is cleverly stopping invasions by placing air units on beach hexes or ports when he sees a Landing Unit which works pretty well particularly if Ftrs are used. I don't begrudge him using the clever tactic, but the game ought not allow that...

Re stacking (and related issues) I have the following suggestions for your consideration:

1 Merging and splitting likely should not freeze units for any more than at most a week.
2 Allow merging of 3 divisions into a corps
3 For WWI in particular consider Army size formations as more than one corps would deploy in a hex
4 Air and naval units don't take up space (or defend space) on ground and are displaced by ground units Perhaps with a token hit applied, perhaps to the force pool for air units for simplicity.
5 Units should take longer to build
6 Reinforcing units should be a bit more expensive or in some way restricted bringing a nearly destroyed unit back to 100% while still in contact with the enemy in a turn is perhaps too liberal. The existing supply / reinforcement rules do address this somewhat. On the other hand if a unit or units adjacent merged with it that would make at least more sense.
7 Units away from the front could perhaps heal slowly without spending points as they refit
8 Maintenance costs need to be revised armor and motorized particularly for Germany were ruinously expensive due to fuel shortages (For the US the the only problem was transporting the fuel so they would be affected differently)

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Instead of stacking you have got:
merging
splitting
upgrading
swapping