I have just played the demo and watched the excellent tutorial videos for this game, it appears to be just the sort of operational level game I was looking for. However, its quite dissappointing to read in a few threads that just using basic Move orders with the Attack option checked works just as well as the synchronised assault method shown in the Videos. if this is true, it takes away a major selling point of the game for me and just reduces it to something like the old Talonsoft Eastern Front game with a better map and OOB. I mean I COULD go through the rigmarole of checking timings for each assaulting unit and synchronising artillery bombardments but why bother if just pushing the counters round like any other hex based wargame works just as well?
Am I reading this wrong or is it a fact that you don't need to bother with most of the stuff shown in the videos?
Setting Attacks
Moderators: Panther Paul, Arjuna
RE: Setting Attacks
I'd say you may have misunderstood slightly, but the basic 'just pile on' does (sort-of) work, as your subordinates will make basic versions of any details you do leave out (as they would in the real situation).
The reason for this is that attacks are planned at 3:1 (to allow successful defence the depleted assaulters and to also make follow-on attacks possible). When just thrown in, the attack will probably succeed, but you may find that your forces are not in a fit state to continue with similar operations - in my book a loss, regardless of tactical success.
Where the planning comes in is getting attacks successful on the first days, with minimal losses, minimal expenditure of supply and with a good prospect of continuing success on subsequent days, and in operations beyond the scope of the scenario end.
With the tutorial, hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle will work to give a minor victory, because you have a strong force preponderance, particularly in armour and artillery, but better tactics, and the use of appropriate commitment of forces in operations they are suited to will allow the complete occupation of all objectives and the destruction of enemy forces in the sector.
Because attacks are planned to be overwhelming, it takes little to achieve small successes - but finessing a strong victory by a weak infantry forces assaulting mechanised infantry dug-in in towns, in deep snow... and to still have sufficient forces to accomplish the same again, repeatedly, takes rather more understanding and ability to think ahead and coordinate. You can either do this using the coordination tools, or by rough alignment of forces in time and space using separate missions (where the coordination is by presence). In each case there is more happening than just pushing counters.
The experience is still very different from Talonsoft - you needn't "move" all elements, even when they are 'active' as they will continue performing on-going missions until they are complete or are modified, allowing the player's focus to be on mission and timings rather than movement points and turns.
A closer approximation might be V4V (also with ongoing 'missions/tasks', but with turn-based orders impulses - still closer to BfTB than a run-of-the-mill turn based offering though), where you might plan a wonderful attack/defence, but issues of supply, timings and enemy actions might invalidate the plan before it even opens... and it might take some time to spot the problems arising.
The reason for this is that attacks are planned at 3:1 (to allow successful defence the depleted assaulters and to also make follow-on attacks possible). When just thrown in, the attack will probably succeed, but you may find that your forces are not in a fit state to continue with similar operations - in my book a loss, regardless of tactical success.
Where the planning comes in is getting attacks successful on the first days, with minimal losses, minimal expenditure of supply and with a good prospect of continuing success on subsequent days, and in operations beyond the scope of the scenario end.
With the tutorial, hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle will work to give a minor victory, because you have a strong force preponderance, particularly in armour and artillery, but better tactics, and the use of appropriate commitment of forces in operations they are suited to will allow the complete occupation of all objectives and the destruction of enemy forces in the sector.
Because attacks are planned to be overwhelming, it takes little to achieve small successes - but finessing a strong victory by a weak infantry forces assaulting mechanised infantry dug-in in towns, in deep snow... and to still have sufficient forces to accomplish the same again, repeatedly, takes rather more understanding and ability to think ahead and coordinate. You can either do this using the coordination tools, or by rough alignment of forces in time and space using separate missions (where the coordination is by presence). In each case there is more happening than just pushing counters.
The experience is still very different from Talonsoft - you needn't "move" all elements, even when they are 'active' as they will continue performing on-going missions until they are complete or are modified, allowing the player's focus to be on mission and timings rather than movement points and turns.
A closer approximation might be V4V (also with ongoing 'missions/tasks', but with turn-based orders impulses - still closer to BfTB than a run-of-the-mill turn based offering though), where you might plan a wonderful attack/defence, but issues of supply, timings and enemy actions might invalidate the plan before it even opens... and it might take some time to spot the problems arising.
RE: Setting Attacks
Two fairly complete 'orders' spring to mind from 'pulp-history':
Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!
Find the bastards and pile on!
Both "work", and about as well as you'd expect - sometimes decisive action and Elan bring early success, and the initiative... other times your attack dies on prepared positions as you didn't do 'enough' preparation, and the re-attack with depleted forces is harder than a properly planned attack would have been in the first place.
Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!
Find the bastards and pile on!
Both "work", and about as well as you'd expect - sometimes decisive action and Elan bring early success, and the initiative... other times your attack dies on prepared positions as you didn't do 'enough' preparation, and the re-attack with depleted forces is harder than a properly planned attack would have been in the first place.
RE: Setting Attacks
Where you say 'Operations beyond the scope of the Scenarios end' Does this mean that you carry forward the same units from battle to battle, something similar to Panzer Corps? I didn't get the impression there was a campaign mode from what I've read.
RE: Setting Attacks
No, but you are allowed to role play...
I'd suggest that minimising the number of 'letters home' and maximising end-state combat power (including some reserve of artillery ammunition) are worthy goals even if not in the scenario win conditions or factor into the next scenario... while burning out your forces in the opening day of a multi-week operation is probably a long-term failure, even if you completely clear the day one objectives... as the defender will probably win the race to rebuild forces.
I'd suggest that minimising the number of 'letters home' and maximising end-state combat power (including some reserve of artillery ammunition) are worthy goals even if not in the scenario win conditions or factor into the next scenario... while burning out your forces in the opening day of a multi-week operation is probably a long-term failure, even if you completely clear the day one objectives... as the defender will probably win the race to rebuild forces.
RE: Setting Attacks
Very informative, thank you very much for that. As you are obviously an experienced computer wargamer have you ever come across a game that allows you to play as a High Level (Army commander or higher) but with more strategic planning rather than tactics (which is essentially what every wargame I have ever played boils down to, regardless of whether its called a Grand Strategy game or not). Operational Art of War and Grigsby's War in The East still boils down to micro managing reconnaisance battalions even if theoretically you are supposed to be an Army or Army Group commander, the old Third Reich gave you divisional level control of the whole western front, but it was still a counter pushing exercise. The closest thing I ever came across to my ideal game was Napoleon 1813, where you allocated commanders to Divisions/Corps and just gave them general objectives like 'Advance to town x, join up with MacDonald and relieve the isolated garrison in town y' - not in exactly those words, but effectively that was the level of orders you gave. Unfortunately the game was so buggy that it was unplayable and nothing ever saved it.
RE: Setting Attacks
I think Lieste already explained that very well.
Think about it that way, most attacks may be successful even with a simple move order but your units will be worn down and not fit to mount another attack again.
So your boss will be angry...
Think about it that way, most attacks may be successful even with a simple move order but your units will be worn down and not fit to mount another attack again.
So your boss will be angry...
RE: Setting Attacks
I'd say options are fairly limited - 99% of wargames involve micro-managing 100s/1000s of counters over multiple hexes/turns. Some manage multiple turn movement orders, a few can handle group movement (but are typically dreadful at it (SP platoon movements - the horror).
AA/Cmd-Ops is close, but not perfect, and how well it matches your needs would depend on play style - though it would be possible. Right at the upper limit of map/force sizes though... performance may be slow, and "strategic" AI less than amazing with that much to manage - playing against a like-minded human player would be challenging and tricky though. I think you might need to work at 3 command levels, rather than 2 (Army HQ > Rgts, rather than the 'ideal' Army HQ > Divs, and mission performance might still be non-optimal, without real intelligence behind Bn orders). Some areas might need more 'rigidity' to planning - artillery and supply seem most over-controllable/un-controllable respectively. Planning could do with graphical overlays - artillery/phase-lines/boundaries, which inform both player and AI decisions.
Patriot was interesting, but unfortunately flawed... worth a look for curiosity sake though if you can find it (DOS)
There are some Naval wargames that seemed to be closer to the solution (easier with 'only' a few tens of units).
I'd look at what Peturabo is looking at, he has several discussions in the General Discussion Forum ^^, as his search seems similar (except with an obsession with steam-punk [:D]).
AA/Cmd-Ops is close, but not perfect, and how well it matches your needs would depend on play style - though it would be possible. Right at the upper limit of map/force sizes though... performance may be slow, and "strategic" AI less than amazing with that much to manage - playing against a like-minded human player would be challenging and tricky though. I think you might need to work at 3 command levels, rather than 2 (Army HQ > Rgts, rather than the 'ideal' Army HQ > Divs, and mission performance might still be non-optimal, without real intelligence behind Bn orders). Some areas might need more 'rigidity' to planning - artillery and supply seem most over-controllable/un-controllable respectively. Planning could do with graphical overlays - artillery/phase-lines/boundaries, which inform both player and AI decisions.
Patriot was interesting, but unfortunately flawed... worth a look for curiosity sake though if you can find it (DOS)
There are some Naval wargames that seemed to be closer to the solution (easier with 'only' a few tens of units).
I'd look at what Peturabo is looking at, he has several discussions in the General Discussion Forum ^^, as his search seems similar (except with an obsession with steam-punk [:D]).
RE: Setting Attacks
Take a look at the HPS game that came out recently..Future Force I think it's called.
RE: Setting Attacks
That Future Force game looks pretty unconventional, is there actually no battlefield as such?
I love reading the campaign histories of various commanders and its frustrating that there isn't a computer wargame that actually replicates the decision making levels that they operated on. E.g If you played Barborossa as Ritter Von Leeb in Army Group North your overall objective would be to take Leningrad and link up with the Finns to the North, but obviously with various intermediate objectives on the way. Command Ops does that on a much smaller scale but surely the game system could be adapted so that you could give Corps level orders rather than battalion level?
You could also choose from three levels of objectives - say, Easily Achievable, Potentially Achievable and Optimistic. Then if you chose the hardest level you could steal units from other commanders (as Model was famously wont to do) if you could convince your superiors that extra Panzer Army was really necessary [;)]
I love reading the campaign histories of various commanders and its frustrating that there isn't a computer wargame that actually replicates the decision making levels that they operated on. E.g If you played Barborossa as Ritter Von Leeb in Army Group North your overall objective would be to take Leningrad and link up with the Finns to the North, but obviously with various intermediate objectives on the way. Command Ops does that on a much smaller scale but surely the game system could be adapted so that you could give Corps level orders rather than battalion level?
You could also choose from three levels of objectives - say, Easily Achievable, Potentially Achievable and Optimistic. Then if you chose the hardest level you could steal units from other commanders (as Model was famously wont to do) if you could convince your superiors that extra Panzer Army was really necessary [;)]
RE: Setting Attacks
Sounds like Road To Moscow.. cancelled in development in 1999
RE: Setting Attacks
I wouldn't be interested in a corps level game myself..I love this scale as it's bordering on tactical...many books I read are about actions on a smaller scale where coy level units are involved.
Your asking for a kind of roleplaying operational wargame...which does sound like fun...but I can't think of any game like it.
It is far removed from what BftB is and really would be a whole new game.
Your asking for a kind of roleplaying operational wargame...which does sound like fun...but I can't think of any game like it.
It is far removed from what BftB is and really would be a whole new game.