Suggestion for NEW Game!

vils · Post by **vils** » Mon Jan 14, 2002 5:07 pm

The Europes most successful Generals during 1600-1700 was no doubt the Swedish monarks of GUSTAV II ADOLF (battle of lutzen1640th 30yr war) and CARL X GUSTAV (Conquered Poland and Denmark 1658) and the ultimate CARL XII GUSTAV, who Conquered Baltic states, parts of Poland.

Why dont make a campaign game of this ERA? Most countries were involved in this conflicts, so there are huge potential for a game, just read the history! And there is no game that has been made from this era either.

Personally i love the campaign of ordering armies over vast territories, but mostly the micromanagement of the individual soldiers as for example SidMeyers Gettysburg! Thats the way of doing close-combat with nice graphics!

Any comments for this?

A second thought would be a campaign game for Napoleones attack on Russia. The whole campaign with all the history throwned in it. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Tue Jan 15, 2002 9:30 pm

I am likely opening the door to a lot of nasty rebutal, but while I enjoy "reading" about pre WW1 era warfare, I would likely have to say that any sort of wargame software based on anything pre WW1 would be immensely dull.

WW2 and onward is primarily interesting due to the scope, the sheer magnitude of terrain involved. The machinery of war is a great deal more complex (not to mention its more than just a bunch of guys lined up shooting at each other after long walks).

The advent of Modern era instant news through the media has made warfare more about the one individual that was killed in a helicopter incident or whatever admittedly. Battles like Tarawa would have the public truely horrified.

Today, we are unlikely to see much of an involved WW2 like battle. I cant for instance see any interest whatsoever gaming out the fight in Afganistan.

Of course I could be wrong. But I wouldnt myself personally, play any pre WW1 era game under any circumstances (regardless of how oooh wow the game looked).

vils · Post by **vils** » Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:57 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
I am likely opening the door to a lot of nasty rebutal, but while I enjoy "reading" about pre WW1 era warfare, I would likely have to say that any sort of wargame software based on anything pre WW1 would be immensely dull.

WW2 and onward is primarily interesting due to the scope, the sheer magnitude of terrain involved. The machinery of war is a great deal more complex (not to mention its more than just a bunch of guys lined up shooting at each other after long walks).

The advent of Modern era instant news through the media has made warfare more about the one individual that was killed in a helicopter incident or whatever admittedly. Battles like Tarawa would have the public truely horrified.

Today, we are unlikely to see much of an involved WW2 like battle. I cant for instance see any interest whatsoever gaming out the fight in Afganistan.

Of course I could be wrong. But I wouldnt myself personally, play any pre WW1 era game under any circumstances (regardless of how oooh wow the game looked).

Ahumm. Well, i thouht the same some years ago before o started to read about older history.
But the more i read, the more i realised that the tactics were far more greater then in 'modern' war.

Ops boss around, gotta end abruptly <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

jerrysindle · Post by **jerrysindle** » Wed Jan 16, 2002 9:08 pm

Actually Sarge, I think the fight in Afghanistan will lend itself very well to the SP2 game system, the SPMBT game system, and the Combat Leader game system.

The heroic efforts of a special forces team to prevent the Taliban taking a village from them and a company of skitterish Afghans. One side gets a battalion of infantry in Toyota pickups, the other side gets one 12 man US special forces squad, one skitterish Afghan company of light Pushtan infantry. Additionally, the US gets 1 B1 bomber with 24 JDAMS, and 2 F/A-18s with 2 2000 pound bombs each.

The JDAMS will have the typical delay of artillary, but will not scatter. They will hit the hex they are called upon to hit.

The difficulty with the JDAMS is they are fired at a hex not a target, so you have to guess where the pickups will be when they land.

Lots of good scenarios to make in Afghanistan.

V/R

Jerry

scimitar · Post by **scimitar** » Wed Jan 16, 2002 9:25 pm

Personnally, I would like to see a tactical game of WWI air war; a Flight Commander- or Over the Reich/Achtung Spitfire-like...

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:24 pm

I guess with me it is possibly interest value a bit too.

I wouldnt play that Afganistan setting even if it was possible to represent it. It lacks an interest level (I am not saying there is no fighting there, just none I care to wargame out).

To much of WW2 is open to examples of battles that actually occurred (and the "what if you were there in command potential"). Its a target rich environment. Not to mention the research is a bit less politically motivated these days.

Its why I have no real interest in using Coalition firepower to slag Republican Guard armour in Irag. Way to much "speculation" of what each weapons sytem "supposedly" can do, and the reality (we all know that smart weapons seem ironically similar to anything produced in the US educational system, sorry for the slag yanks, but reality bites).

I can point out several spots in WW2 I wouldnt want to fight out as well though. A good wargame needs a good situation to model.

I can still remember watching the fall of the Berlin Wall and the trashing of Russian Communism. Not to mention the speed I ditched all my WWW3 wargames while they were still worth anything to a store at all. Maybe I just have a bias against post Korean warfare settings.

Khan7 · Post by **Khan7** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 11:53 pm

The thing that people consistently will fail to realize about old warfare and new warfare is that it really is all the same thing anyway. I suppose if you enjoy the act of memorizing a large and diverse weapons encyclopedia, WW2 and on would be for you. But this is the only real advantage that WW2 has over any other era. Different types and uses of forces, strategic and tactical options-- WW2 is definitely not unique in this sense.

Personally I find all eras about equally interesting. WW2 is of course always going to be a favorite of true military students, and I like a good weapons encyclopedia as well as the next wargamer, but, styling myself as a military student, I cannot and do not wish to limit myself in this fashion. So it's WW2 one day and the Iliad the next for me, I'm happy to play well-made wargames from any era.

Matt

Capt. Chris · Post by **Capt. Chris** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:19 am

Before you go criticize anything, you should at least try it out. I started my wargaming hobby with armys of Romans, Greeks, Turks, Templars, Scotts, etc. The basic tactics and strategy remain the same throughout the ages.

It wasn't for quite some that my group actually picked up WWII microarmor. I love the WWII era and it is my favorite mainly because I can relate a little better to it. I am a technology geek.

I am still searching for a PC based wargame that can give me the thrills of tabletop gaming. Steel Panthers is a fantastic game, but nothing beats a Saturday night gathering of friends to duke it out on a 4x8 sheet of plywood.

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:16 pm

Jerry, I think that SPII, SPIII (you would have to edit your units to squad size, instead of plts), and CL all lend themselves to model the Afghan war. They all lend themselves to the use of special ops and the use of choppers for mobility.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:52 pm

Table top miniatures does in fact look like fun. Its the reason my dining room table is based off of a 4x8 sheet of plywood actually.

Made the table originally out of a conventional sheet of plywood specifically for miniatures games, added legs to it and poof game table. Played three games battling it out with the hordes of lead miniatures me and my buddies had from our roleplaying stashes. And that was it. The interest vanished. Oh well.

Tried to get into the hobby right up until I discovered that Citadel,the primary maker of fantasy miniatures (and fantasy is the most common entry genre), not only charged ya an arm and a leg for dang near nothing, but their product was offensively crummy in quality to boot.
And being a modeller of some capability, I sure aint spending a fortune to play with miniatures of lousy quality, that dont come painted or assembled. At least my wargames require nothing more than removing counters from counter sheets.

This is perhaps the biggest problem with miniatures gaming. The entry difficulty level. It is comparable to being unable to play Steel Panthers unless you invest in a computer first I guess. Or being required to purchase all of ASL before being able to play it. Its a sizable hurdle to overcome.

End result. I rebuilt the table after much sanding and making a proper trestle table base and now I have a great looking 4x8 dining table. But miniatures gaming in spite of its appeal, wont be much to me.

I must say though. I cant see an attraction to pre WW2 gaming on the computer. But I would never pass up a chance to push miniatures around on a table top gaming area. I think that time period is best served on the table top (just my opinion).

Del · Post by **Del** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 11:17 pm

No scope in pre WWI warfare? Modern combined arms warfare is built upon pre WWI warfare. The real first world war didn't start in 1914. It was long before that. The French and English fought more than one war that spanned the globe before 1800. Napy fought a war that reached as far as the Western Hemisphere.

Sorry Les but I would have to disagree with you. Of course it's a matter of preference. My two favorites are the Napoleon era and the Crimean War. When they get the bugs worked out of the Le Grande Armee system give it a try you might be surprised. Looks like a good series.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:54 pm

I would like to see a game that concentrates on the naval race between England and Germany prior to WWI. One which allows both strategic and tactical level play, limited warship design, historical revisionism and an accurate historical mode for those who just want to blow up HMS Invincible over and over again. Was there not an attempt at this a few years back which failed due to poor design and poorer financing?

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 1:22 am

Whoever thinks pre-20th century warfare is dull hasn't tried it. Colonial warfare is not just slotting Fuzzy-Wuzzies. It requires care for your flanks, your supply lines, proper use of terrain, intelligent force selection, the willingness to take risks, and the ability to make plans quickly and change plans quickly.

You are usually heavily outnumbered, out of the reach of headquarters, alone. Everything relies on YOU. You can't blame running out of petrol, the technical superiority of enemy weapons, the weather keeping your air force on the ground. You have to perform.

troopie

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: troopie ]</p>

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 3:06 pm

Originally posted by scimitar:
Personnally, I would like to see a tactical game of WWI air war; a Flight Commander- or Over the Reich/Achtung Spitfire-like...

Ah yes, and do you remember the old Avalon Hill's board game called Luftwaffe ? More strategic than tactical, but a hell of a lot of fun!

Hetz(er) · Post by **Hetz(er)** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:29 am

I have no idea at all of how much of a bugger it would be to program but as far as WWI dogfighting goes does anyone remember F.I.T.S.(fight in the skies)? A great great game that actually wasn't that complex for what it allowed you to simulate.
As far as napoleonics goes SSI had a decent computer game out in like 89 or 90 called "the battles of napoleon" that considered things like line and square and skirmish and allowed you to "buy" different armies from that time period.

New York Jets · Post by **New York Jets** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:59 am

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
I am likely opening the door to a lot of nasty rebutal, but while I enjoy "reading" about pre WW1 era warfare, I would likely have to say that any sort of wargame software based on anything pre WW1 would be immensely dull.

WW2 and onward is primarily interesting due to the scope, the sheer magnitude of terrain involved. The machinery of war is a great deal more complex (not to mention its more than just a bunch of guys lined up shooting at each other after long walks).

Les, are you meaning an operational, tactical or strategic game prior to WWI? From a strategic, and even tactical, standpoint the American Civil War is very engaging.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:20 pm

How about teh preiod of about 300AD to the about 1300AD

End of the empire- rise of middle europe- the last true medievil battles in the middle east!

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 5:32 pm

Originally posted by vils:

Personally i love the campaign of ordering armies over vast territories, but mostly the micromanagement of the individual soldiers as for example SidMeyers Gettysburg! Thats the way of doing close-combat with nice graphics!

Any comments for this?

I also wouldn't mind seeing a game about the 30 year war. It would have to be either operational or strategic level game though, since in the tactical level the battles of the era were simply unmanageable because of the size of army and the lack of communication and proper telescopes.

A mixed operational & strategic 30 year war game might be the most interesting one, since there were quite a few participants in the war and the strategic situation also changed quite often. So possibly some sort of a mixture between detailed army command and a relatively detailed diplomacy control might produce quite an interesting combination.

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 5:48 pm

Originally posted by vils:
The Europes most successful Generals during 1600-1700 was no doubt the Swedish monarks of GUSTAV II ADOLF (battle of lutzen1640th 30yr war) and CARL X GUSTAV (Conquered Poland and Denmark 1658) and the ultimate CARL XII GUSTAV, who Conquered Baltic states, parts of Poland.

Instead of Lützen I'd rather mention Breitenfeld a year or two before as the greatest moment for Gustaf II Adolf. This was the battle which showed the tactical superiority of his army against the best of the spanish tactical ability. This was also the battle which the catholic generals studied closely and used to learn the tactics used.
Lützen was IMHO the fight that should not have been fought, and a culmination of a year of operational failures, in which Wallenstein outmaneuvred the Swedish army over and over again, which IMO was caused by Gustafs lack of a clear strategy to end the war quickly. His path was open into the heartlands of the Habsburg empire and possibly even to Vienna. But instead of going straight for the victory he decided to eliminate the threat caused by Wallenstein who had appeared to his rear area. My personal belief is that this choice was a failure, since if Gustaf had decided to attack Vienna, Wallenstein would have had to follow him, because the armies already lived off the land, so supply routes were not an immediate problem. This would have kept the initiative in the Swedish king's hands.

However what the king lacked in strategic vision, the men who took command after his death more than made up for it, both Baner and Oxenstierna (and I guess there were some other soo, but I can't remember names) fought hard and long to keep what had been gained in the first year of the war, and eventually got a favorable result even against highly usperior force, who by then had caught up in tactics.

perrascout · Post by **perrascout** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:27 pm

This sounds as a good idea. Once i tryed to recreate the battle of Poltava with SP3... but he weapons didn't work the way I wanted it to...

//Perra

Originally posted by vils:
The Europes most successful Generals during 1600-1700 was no doubt the Swedish monarks of GUSTAV II ADOLF (battle of lutzen1640th 30yr war) and CARL X GUSTAV (Conquered Poland and Denmark 1658) and the ultimate CARL XII GUSTAV, who Conquered Baltic states, parts of Poland.

Why dont make a campaign game of this ERA? Most countries were involved in this conflicts, so there are huge potential for a game, just read the history! And there is no game that has been made from this era either.

Personally i love the campaign of ordering armies over vast territories, but mostly the micromanagement of the individual soldiers as for example SidMeyers Gettysburg! Thats the way of doing close-combat with nice graphics!

Any comments for this?

A second thought would be a campaign game for Napoleones attack on Russia. The whole campaign with all the history throwned in it. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">