Blitzkrieg

[Raindem]

Updated this scenario for 3.4.

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... Blitzkrieg

Curt

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

Great news Curt, as usually thanks a lot for the awesome contribution. I shall give that go along with both "Deep Battle" and "Revisionist War 1937" as soon as I free some space up for those, I have just developed a taste for the balanced hypothetical settings that may finally tell me if I am good or bad at this.

[BearFlag]

A great scenario and a nice re-make of the old classic boardgame. It's only drawback is that it doesn't live up to its name. This is not a comment on Curt's faithful rendition, but rather the game's origin. Even back in the days of the boardgame it was often joked that it should be called "Sitzkrieg" because two equal forces smash together in the center of the board and proceed to duke it out in attrition. That is, a lot of blood and little Blitz.

For solitaire play, I like to let the computer play both sides until one has the clear advantage. Then assume command of the weaker force and try to recover against Elmer.

The original Blitzkrieg was very loosely intended to be a pseudo-WWII after an issue of AH's General magazine more fully developed the "neutral" countries. Even so, it never quite lived up to that promise.

The idea, however, of developing hypothetical "study" campaigns which mimic historical ones is an interesting concept and an idea for which TOAW is well suited. Scenario designers have not really engaged this possibility intensively even though it has the merits of imitating historical campaigns without the need for rigorous historical accuracy.

For example, a psuedo-Africa Campaign could be created with an east-west ebb and flow and lots of possibilities for southward maneuver. It could have interesting terrain features, units (camels any one?), objectives and strategic options. All the while it would "feel" like the NA Campaign.

It's just an idea. But it could free scenario designers from the shackles of rigid historical design to create look-alike wars that explore terrain and force variables and just be a lot of fun at the same time.

As I see it, there are three conditions which can make for a good and engaging "hypothetical" game:

1) The geography is real and the story fictional. For example, a 21st Century American civil war.

2) The story is fictional while the geography and game play is imitative of a commonly known historical campaign. For example, the sweeping invasion of USSR, D-day and breakout, island hopping, North Africa, the Italian peninsula slugfest, the Korean see-saw.

3) A pure study. Forces and geography are fictional. The purpose is to explore or demonstrate military strategy.

[Raindem]

Points well taken. It's only Blitzkrieg for about 2-3 turns, until you bump into this massive wall of infantry & armor rolling towards you. AH should have given it different name. I still like the original idea of a chess-like contest that is going to be won by the best tactician. In it's TOAW role, the scenario is a good choice for tournament/ladder play. It's also a good choice for beginners because it gives them all the complexities of combined arms combat in a small manageable package.