Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand

[Kuniworth]

Hi guys, great to be back.

Well Hearts of Iron is now out and I must say that I´m a bit dissapointed. Great game but in real time and to hard to get an overlook. I feel that many of the wir and pacific war players will never enjoy it.

So the years go by. We see some new games coming but we never get this total ww2 game covering the whole world. Sure there are many great games outthere covering europe most of the time but I want the whole war and no company at all endorse such a game. We got pacific war fans, war in russia fans, third reich fans, strategic command fans, Hearts of iron fans, clash of steel fans and so on. Lets come together once and for all. And lets do it NOW.

Therefore as a ww2 consumer, Im now taking this step to once and for all get a great game all of us want. So my proposal is this;

All of us interested will do a name-collection and then send it to the gaming-compaines demanding the ultimate ww2 experience. In return we promise to buy the game and work for a strong community supporting it. I know that this may seem crazy but Im ready to go as far as I can to get this. The strategy-war gamers deserves it and I´m confident that there are thousands and thousands all over the world ready to support this idea. Thus making the game a great business-idea.

I want a game based on the Wir model which still is the best up to date. However many games got good ideas which could be implemented so I say this is the communities simple terms;


-The game should cover the whole world war 1936-1947

-Turnbased game like war in russia, one week-turns and hexbased.

- Unit-model used in War in russia. Corps with divisions in it.

- Availibility to play USA, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Sovietunion, Japan.

-Production like in War in russia. But a very good research-model should be used.

-User friendly interface.

- Great looking graphics to ensure the game attracts new strategy gamers. Realistic map, like the outstanding map proposed by 2by3 games to their eastfront game.

- Simple but deep and realistic diplomacy level. See world in flames politics model or Hearts of Iron.

- Great AI. Chance for multiplayer and email-games. Maybe an AI that lurns your tactics like the 2by3 eastfront game.


This is our terms. What do you think of this? Please reply to this thread. And if you are ready to work with me write to

kuniworth@hotmail.com


Lets make this happen. We can do it.


/ Andreas, Sweden

[Kuniworth]

Well at least I´ve tried. But I still believe that it would be a market for such a game. Come on Sarge do you wanna play some battle when you can play the whole war. We desperately need a good strategic simulation with operational warfare of the whole war. I can´t believe that Matrix can put out a game about Napoleon warfare iN Europe but not about world war 2.

War in Russia and Pacific war remains still today the best game of larger conflict. Hearts of Iron can never be grognards choice for a strategic game thanx to it beeing Axis and Allies advanced in RTS. It´s a disgrace that no company in over 10 years been able to create a nice graphic looking turnbased strategy game about the ww2.

We this game and we need it now. I KNOW people would buy it even if they are not willing to fight as desperate as me for it.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I think that a game this scale might be totally impossible to create. The research required to get the OOB right, as well as to have adequate production, a good AI, etc, etc, etc, will result in a game that takes about a decade to make.

Unfortunately, the larger scale the game gets, the less detailed it must get as well. Theatre War is about as far as I think good wargames can get (without taking a lifetime to make). HoI does a very good job in creating a world theatre game, but it is nowhere near detailed as PacWar, WIR, UV or WitP will be. War In the Pacific has, and will take a long time to complete. Not only do they have to get the OOB right, but they have to make sure that the AI does intelligent things with the OOB. A large scale game covering the entire world will have this problem multipled 100x, primarily because the Pacific Theatre is a tiny fraction of the world, while world war games can have you decide to fight in territories totally untouched by WW2 (i.e., what if the Germans decide to take all of Africa?).

The main problem that I see in HoI is that the AI is fairly poor, and this game is basically played against the AI (TCP/IP is only for the dedicated few). The OOB is ok, but there are some glaring problems (Really old CL's are generically the same as highly modern CA's in HoI, among other things). A lot of this will be fixed in patches, as well as fanbased mods (Europa Universalis was heavily modded by the community which made a mediocre game an excellent game). The 1.01 patch fixed a lot of problems in the initial release, and the 1.02 patch will hopefully fix the other glaring problems (the one that gets me the most is the fact that the Allies will NEVER attempt to liberate continental Europe!).

Don't give up on HoI just yet. It is probably the best world war strategic game out there, which gives about as much detail that you can hope for in a game of that scale. Unfortunatley, I cannot play this game until Christmas (when I think patch 1.02 is coming out), as I REALLY hate playing historic wargames that have glaring problems in the OOB as well as a totally incompetent AI when it comes to reacting to your unexpected moves (as well as refuses to do even the most basically logical things!).

[Ed Cogburn]

Interesting.

First, WIR itself has problems so I'm not so qucik to say it should be based on WIR. lets hope GG gives us a much better WIRIII.

Second, what's wrong with WIF? Its the whole world at the divisional level. but its not likely to have an AI. I don't really care about the AI anyway, I've never come across a strategy wargame with a good one. WIF should satisfy the hardcore out there who want the whole thing at once.

Third, as something Jeremy alluded to, WWII was a dichotomy. The Pacific Theatre was a profoundly different war than the European Theatre. The equipment, tactics, strategies, and logistics were very different. Its really hard to design a game to do both when you end up really having to design two different games.

I would like to see a game similar to WIR/WF on all of Europe, that is long overdue I think. I think we should start a petiition or something to do two things: First, get GG and 2by3 Games to change their WIRIII plans into WIR+WF for all of Europe, and second to get Matrix to sign on to this game.



GG's War In Europe Wishlist:

Corps level, with "smart" counters. The screen icons for the corps show size (XX or XXX) and strength dynamically as the player changes the contents of the corps or moves it and it loses readiness and expends supplies.

Battlefield intelligence is more accurate and detailed, based on air superiority and how long you've been in contact with the enemy. If you spend 3 weeks adjacent to an enemy corps you should have a good idea of its composition.

Allow overruns. This would reduce the success of using thin screening forces, or single division suicide units, and eliminate the "battalion-sized corps" silliness as currently in WIR. If you stick a lone battalion out there, I should know that immediately, the difference between a battalion and multiple divisiions being obvious, and just overrun it without thought. It would also help simulate more accurately the initial blitzkrieg, particularly of Barbarossa.

Allow air units to base on the map, but still be assigned to Army HQs. Have fighter units be more active, have an air superiority phase were fighters fight automatically to see who owns the skies over the hexes.

Real honest to god hexes please, but align hex orientation so that east-west/west-east fighting only provides 2 adjacent squares, since most fighting in Europe was east-west or vice versa, not north-sourth/south-north.

Production system that includes research, training, and population. Pilots have to be trained, same for tank crews. Better training takes more time. In reality Germany in '45 was producing more tanks than it had people to put in them. Their training for pilots was excellent but could not meet demand as the war progressed. Let the player choose the tradeoffs. Manpower pressures should be accurately represented: the needs of the military versus the needs of the economy and industry back home.

Abstracted naval element, this is a ground war. However, provide accurate representation of naval logistics's impact on ground campaigns.

Logistical system should represent the differences between motorized transport and non-motorized transport. Supplies, and especially fuel, should be something that requires production to "make", and therefore a commodity in finite supply and vulnerable to strategic air attack. If necessary, split "resources" of WIR into specific sub-types, and provide "factories" or production centers for these resource types.



More things as I think of them......

Maybe we should put together such a wishlist and send it to 2by3 and see what their reaction is?

[Kuniworth]

Ed thank you very much for your post. I think your suggestion is the best way forward in the current situation.

The problem with war in flames are the useless complexity. Keep it on WiR level and lets make it good.

Interesting wishlist by the way...

[MikeB]

I once dreamed of buying a hotel and linking the rooms via computer. Different teams on different floors would provide input to a wwii game. A continuous on-going convention would cycle holiday gamers through the hotel to keep it afloat.

The internet arrived. so....
I was disappointed to read about the limitations of HOI as it had just been shown to me at the local computer Electronic Boutique store as having arrived. Nevertheless, i think Strategy First does have a rep for releasing improvement fixes.

My thought is that one focuses upon "Joining" different games into one large game. ie. Close Combat -> Operational Art of War -> WIR -> World in Flames. Attrition in one game leads up to losses in a higher level game. I have not tried Strategy First's WWII online. Any comments?

re Ed's post...
yes WIF does provide a framework of the world...with politics. Its economics and research could be enhanced. HOI / Europa Universalis politics might make the politics better.

The Pacific theatre was MUCH different from Europe and surrounding seas(North Atlantic convoy war, Med Italian lake). ie. choke points.

If plane bases other than HQ...then divisional/sub divisional units are needed for defence against paradrops. Does one go down to "raids" ...ala the "Dirty Dozen" movie?

Battlefield intelligence ... great.

Perfect knowledge for overrun is a board gaming concept(perhaps). Some degree of fog of war needs to exist / be possible.

Fighter units more active ...YES.

HEXES ... DEFINITELY. I feel lost in Medieval Total war...where one turns your head to see a different direction and can exchange position by jumping to different units. I dont think this is appropriate in an operational/strategy game.

Naval detail is somewhat fuzzy in my mind. In case of North Africa and North Atlantic, some detail is needed. SPI WWII / Barbarossa might have had appropriate level naval rules.

SPI WWII/Barbarossa HQ operational points :
I sort of liked the idea of HQ operational points to activate units in a limited zone for initiating combat. The pass option risking end of turn if opponent also passed kept the offensive oriented side engaged.

Manpower/woman power? integration into economic, research and military units needs work. I do not know of any game that does this from scratch. Paul Kennedy's 1987 book "Rise and Fall of Great Powers 1500-2000" gives some insight to this aspect.

Jeremy..."Unfortunately, the larger scale the game gets, the less detailed it must get as well"

Yes, there is a tradeoff. The larger the game, the more detailed the game, the more time it takes to play EACH turn. How many of the gaming community are retired and are willing to commit the time to play a LARGE game. My 3 local working colleagues meet most Friday nights for 3-4 hrs. We tend to play WIF for about 2-3 YEARS to get a 39-45 campaign completed. Occasionally, we wander off into a "quick" 2 week relax of "History of the World" or conquering USA(forget milton bradley name for game).
I think there is a case that could be made to promote a GRAND size game. There had been a company in Boulder Colorado running a playbymail game "Victory". It was somewhat wwii based, area movement rather than hex movement, fighter cover/cap, economic development(manpower restrictions) etc. Turn orders are sent in from many players. The orders are run somewhat continuously as different players have different days when their turn is processed. One can delay one's next turn...but then your cycle is permanently delayed. This type of feed from many different players could be a business/game model. I personally dont retire till about Sept 2006...but i could be interested in promoting/developing? such business/game model. Any helpers?

[K62_]

I think Mike makes a very good point when talking about the size of the game: 2-3 years to play a single game is enormous. On the other hand, it is not very realistic to have to deal with the large amount of detail that this implies: the player is supposed to be on the level of high command, right?

Hitler or Stalin never gave orders to every individual corps (or even division or battalion) every single day of the campaign. That was what they had the generals for.

The rule was that the overall leaders were mainly preoccupied with high-level strategy, i.e. giving orders to Armies or even Army Groups. Only in exceptional situations did they bypass the hierarchy to give orders directly to corps or division commanders. But in WiR you actually have to issue such orders every week until the war is over.

In their brilliance, though, the designers of Wir did actually try to implement that: you can theoretically set objectives for your HQs, sit back and relax while watching the grand picture. The trouble is that nobody really uses that since the AI does a mess of things.

I think the lack of a good (customizable?) subordinate AI is the one biggest imperfection of current wargames. If you want realistic wargaming and want to see what it was like to be the supreme leader of an army you need some generals below you to deal with the detail. Otherwise you begin to lose sight of the forest because of the trees .

[Ed Cogburn]

WIF: Yes, its complex, but that is part of what happens when you try to simulate all of WWII in one game, it will be a complex game no matter what the scale is.

Overruns: Yes, it is a board game concept, but one which represents a real life event. When a full sized tank corps encounters one lone artillery battalion, it doesn't take 2 weeks to figure out they are just a battalion! It doesn't take a week! The corps is advancing on a large front, the battalion probably finds itself surrounded on the 2nd day and destroyed on the 3rd, if it doesn't fall back. Any single battalion or one weak infantry division should not stop an armored corps. That's why we need an overrun even on WIR's scale.

When the moving player advances next to (and reveals) a unit, he is given an assesment of the unit's strength and size shown on the unit icon. This is battlefield intelligence and may not be entirely correct. If the unit shows to be something small or something very weak (combat value of 0 or 1 and the moving unit is a tank corps with a combat value of 15-20, for example), then the moving player can opt to try an overrun. An overrun may not succeed. The results could be a successful overrun with a varying degree of casualties on the attacker, a "hasty" attack with casualties on both, but heavier on the attacker, causing the unit to retreat, or some kind of outright failure. For example, the attacker could take damage and not retreat the defender, or the attacker could be "pinned" in an attack on the unit and be forced to fight in the combat phase.


Plane Bases: Why would we need those units? The range of most fighter units will provide the protection for paradrops. Paradrops would happen on a corps level scale anyway. Fighters would fight for air superiority no matter where they where based. The thing I want to get away from is the ide that one hex holds 8 larger air units. Have them base separately with size restrictions based on the location (cities can support more planes than an empty hex, etc.), and if the player wants to take risks like basing them close to the front, let him.

Manpower: Yes, it would be unique to some degree, and difficult, but isn't WitP going to track individual pilots? If they do that for WitP they MUST do that for this game, because manpower is something that has been ignored too long. Now that we have computers to do the bookkeeping we need to change this. For Germany manpower was ultimately more important than how many tanks they could build per week.

K62: Yes you're right, but *good* subordinate AIs are currently impossible to create, which is part of the reason why Road to Moscow is proving so difficult, and why WIF won't have one at all. In the meantime, the player is the one who has to make the decisions which is why wargames are like they are now. The day they develop true artificial intelligence is the day realistic wargames will become possible, but until then......

[MikeB]

K62:
Large game and detail...
Does anyone remember the War in the West/War in the East of SPI? Our game foundered when the German commander protested that the Russian/allied airforce could be anywhere in all of West/East Europe as it was divided into only 3 ZONES. The less detail...the less reality a game possesses. One picks and chooses between something realistic(detailed) or one lives with the simplicities. Personally, i prefer something with more detail. WIR comes close. It is more that the documentation of WHY things happen is a little obtuse(perhaps to give a fog of war presentation?)

"Customized subordinate AI" ....now there is a phrase. After my tonge twists it out, my mind goes a bit agog. When i think of all the decisions and factors that led to action in just one night of WWII World in Flames game...i hesitate to imagine what size and USE the database would be. Somenights, you feel on a roll with multiple high 9s and 10s for combat rolls and all seems well. How could anyone ever factor in such enthusiasm?

Has anyone kept track of their World in Flames combat decisions....not just their result but also the rationale of deciding to attack...not to mention alligning the forces to do such and provide for backup in case of loss? What about economic builds decisions? I haven't and cannot imagine two games being the same other than perhaps the German attack on Poland, the low countries and France. I have started about 6 WIF games and completed about 3-4.

Ed :
WIR Overruns...doesnt this more or less happen if one moves a tank corps 5 hexes and encounters something in the way that was not previously known? My previous comment about overrun was that intelligence is always subjective or perception. Tom Clancy makes a point in his book series when a phrase says ..."I commit my life(fighter) to combat on the basis of the weenies(who dont fight) intelligence interpretation[Tom's wording is better...but i dont have the time to research the phrase].
The concept of attack types or situations is intrigueing. It is part of what i liked about the Napoleonic Empires in Arms. Could each corps be given a "type of combat" given PERCEIVED intelligence of the odds of a combat(with consideration for terrain/support from other corps) ? This is likely a difficult programming implementation...ie. not going to happen.

Plane Bases...in WIF 44 as Russian, i find myself devoting a militia corps to defend flipped air units behind the front. Admittedly, Russian air units have poor range. The Germans have 2 offensive chits and 2 paradrop units near the front(Kiev - Smolensk). In this game, the germans did not press the russian front after taking Turkey and the middle east. The germans are VERY STRONG with lots of fighters in both France and Russian Front. Italy is even still in the war.
I do like the idea of airbases at other than HQ though.

Manpower... dont forget the Jap pilot training woes or perhaps the Russian use of female military personnel...or the children who helped build the tank defences of Leningrad and perhaps Kharkov. How detailed does one go. One might be able to obtain demographic data from the European countries/sub areas? for say 1938?

Intelligence....
I found the PBM format with different countries going different days over a 2 week period...to be intelligence sharing effective among allies. ie. One does NEED humans...but they must EACH feel themself to be an integral part of the game. I am uncertain to divide a game by army group(including support planes)/group of ports or by service line. A committed game club would be necessary to investigate the option. Perhaps a computer game would need to allow for different options of dividing effort. A side could change options during the course of the game? A section of the front could also be an option(n or s of Pripet Marshes in case of German-Russian front).

[SLAAKMAN]

HEY DUDES, KILLER IDEAS YOUVE GOT GOING HERE. I MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER WITH A LITTLE FUNDING ADDED TO THE SITUATION. HAVE YOU POSTED THIS CONCEPT OF A WW2 THINKTANK ON ANY OF THE OTHER FORUMS? MGO FOR EXAMPLE MIGHT BE FERTILE GROUND FOR ANY NEW IDEAS TOO. (www.militarygameronline.com/forums). I WILL DO WHAT I CAN TO HELP.
SLAAKMAN

[Stefdragon]

You're right!

Why just be a multinational virtual forum and historical/military think tank, when we could be...AN ARMY!!

(I stand ready to accept your International acceptance of me as your Befehlshaber, your Commandante, your Chef!!{my French has always been a little weak})

Remember my friends,

"Today a forum...Tomorrow, THE WORLD!"


"War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."-Clauswitz

[SLAAKMAN]

I NOMINATE MYSELF AS SLAAKCZAR, OBERSLAAKFUHRER, PRIMESLAAKMINISTER AND TOPSLAAKPORNOCHEF. ITS TRUE AS IN ANY GALACTIC COUP, SOME OF YOU MAY DIE, BUT THAT IS A SACRIFICE THAT IM WILLING TO MAKE. LET THE JOUSTS BEGIN!!!
SLAAKATTAK

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by SLAAKMAN
HEY DUDES, KILLER IDEAS YOUVE GOT GOING HERE. I MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER WITH A LITTLE FUNDING ADDED TO THE SITUATION.
SLAAKMAN

'


What is this, some kind of perverted joke?

[Possum]

Have any of you visited Davewolf's homepage?
He is hosting a WW2 stratagy game discussion there.
Drop in and read what programming notes they have developed to date.

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Kuniworth
'


What is this, some kind of perverted joke?

Kuniworth:

I've got to tell you how funny that is, as to how two people could read the same thing, and interpret it in two completely different ways.

Being the naive and trusting New Yorker that I am, I read Slaakman's words to mean that he was willing to contribute some "funding" to the project, rather than the way he now obviously meant it, after reading your post.

What really scares me about him though (other than typing EVERYTHING IN CAPS, and that he is a "forum scrub", {buck private, new inductee, not even ten posts, no location, etc.}), is that he almost seems to me to be some sort of weird, perverted, ultra aggressive, yet amusing and intelligent, while all the while obviously sinister, anonymous secret screen name alter-ego of... THE WOLFMAN.

...Tomorrow, THE WORLD!!

"Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, unseen, both when we wake, and when we sleep."- John Milton (1608-1674)

[SLAAKMAN]

SLAAKWOLFMANN UND STEFDRAGON, OR STEFDRAGON UND SLAAKWOLFMANN.......HAS A GOOD RING TO IT. MIGHT EVEN MAKE A GOOD ALLIANCE FOR GALACTIC CONQUEST. YOU CAN GAIN FURTHER INSIGHTS INTO MY RECENT CONQUESTS AT; www.militarygameronline.com/forums IN THE "NOBODY ASKED ME BUT...." SECTION OR JUST TALK TO ROSS AND MARCUS WHEN THEYVE RETURNED FROM CLEANING THE LATRINE. IM SURE THEY'LL VOUCH FOR ME IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT.
SLAAKATTAK






"TODAY THE REFRIDGERATOR, TOMORROW THE GALAXY"

[Kensai]

Can someone buy this guy a keyboard with an unbroken caps-lock key please???

[MikeB]

I agree with your last post...except somehow you inserted the word "intelligent" when i suspect you meant something like "indigent" or "undigestible"?

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by MikeB
I agree with your last post...except somehow you inserted the word "intelligent" when i suspect you meant something like "indigent" or "undigestible"?

By Jove, I do believe you're correct, and I am embarrassed that I didn't notice.

I meant "intolerant".

Thanks for pointing that out.

Sorry about any confusion because of my carelessness.

Now SLAAKMAN is going to go around thinking he's intelligent, and God only knows what that's going to lead to, and it will all be my fault.

[Energizer]

What I would really like to see is a WW II -game that has detailed and functioning supply system running beneath all other functions. Now I don´t like supply rules in general. In boardgames they bog down the game and are tedious to calculate and use. But this is just the area, where computer strategy games could shine. With the processing power of current PC´s there could be a truly detailed supply network. Roads, railroads, geographically strategic locations etc. would have a real importance (other than just giving some abstract victory points). Supplies could be amassed before major operations, supply dumps could be lost, air warfare would have more interesting possibilities… the list of benefits from a detailed supply system is almost endless. Of course, this should be combined with hexagons, as any "area" would be too big to take narrow roads into consideration (and that's why I´ve lost faith in HoI; they´ll never be able to fix the fundamental design errors). Also the map and hexagon scale should be small enough to allow division scale operations.

I´m not asking for more micromanagement, but rather an semiautomated supply engine that would realistically portray the reality of WW II. While WiR and PacWar did have fairly decent supply rules, I feel that a lot could be achieved in this area.