Napoleon, Grant and Hindenburg GG games for different time periods...

[marek1978]

I really enjoy map, supply system with depots, complexity of the command structure and great flow of the game.
I was wondering if that experience can be transleted in different time period.
American Civil War or Napoleonic Wars for example.

It seems to me that european map could be "altered", depot system kept, rivers enhanced to simulate how the were transferring supply.
Army structure could be kept while "reserve" mode enhanced to simulate rapid concentration of force before bigger battle - for example - if you think about campaign reality you could have divisions spread around certain area and capable of providing themselves mutual support depending on quality of the leader and distance divided.
The same goes for the american civil war
And it could be as well used for different time period games.

So far we have AGEOD games covering those periods, i love them but i thought different approach might be fun as well.
What do you think guys...

[Helpless]

WWI would be fun - making air directives for for the Zeppelin fleets

[chemkid]

.

[Freyr Oakenshield]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

WWI would be fun - making air directives for for the Zeppelin fleets

[:-] don't laugh

now seriously, the air mechanism might just be good for simulating messenger pigeons carrying urgent dispatches or doing reconnaissance of the enemy territory

[Freyr Oakenshield]

C'mon guys, I feel bad about it. I reckon we put poor marek1978 off this forum for ever. Why, this was his virgin post and now he's gone and probably will never be back again...[:(]

Let's be more serious serious in future [:-]

[micheljq]

I personally think the game mechanics could be easily ported to WW1 era. The armies are the same size approximatively, you have some air power too.

For Napoleonic era, it does not make sense to me. A particular battle was fought on a relatively small battlefield compared to 20th century, you did not have whole fronts spending on hundreds of kilometers.

Same for the American Civil War, you did not have whole fronts, it was not such a large scale. You still had armies marching and fighting on a relatively small battlefield.

Michel.

[marek1978]

[font=calibri]Hahaha[/font]
 
[font=calibri]I am tottaly fine, and i think it was funny yet not very constrictive response I am just much more in to ageod games and if i am active on forum i am there And with small daughterm lovely wife and sweatheart boss you just dont have time for being active on forums.. [/font]
 
 
[font=calibri]On a constructive note - i think WWI could be easely portrayed with current mechanics and i somehow fell that devaloper did not use the easy oportunnity to cash on a WW! aniversary[/font]
 
[font=calibri]As for napoleonic war period[/font]
 
[font=calibri]Even thought the actual battles were usually fought on small terain - one or two hexes in game terms, the real fun was about manouver before and after the battle when armies were looking for whether outflanking enemy or attacking directly and the real fun would to decide whether one should outflank, spread defence line whitdrew to better position or maybe concetrate and attack....[/font]
 
[font=calibri]For that sounds fun but thats just my point of wiew[/font]
 
Cheers

[Freyr Oakenshield]

nice to have you back [:)]

[cmunson]

WWI would be fun - making air directives for for the Zeppelin fleets

My thoughts exactly. Many times I've mused about this game system and WWI and I've even wondered if I could do a scenario in the editor as a test. 10 mile hex scale would be great. Most games shrink western front down to a dozen hexes or so and it becomes a bore as all battles are corps and army size engagements.

[LiquidSky]

The three unit stacking rule wouldn't fit very well with WWI. For example the battle of Vimy was conducted by 4 Canadian divisions in a 7km wide front. The Second battle of the Somme had 2 british armies, the Canadian corps, the Australian corps and an American corps fighting over a 55km front.

You would probably have to do the artificial grouping of divisions into corps like in WitE to allow the scale of combat.

[HMSWarspite]

Have you thought of the tedium of the Western Front? November 1914 to March 1918 with the only advance/retreat larger than one hex being the shortening of the line to the Hindenburg positions in 1917... 12 or 16 week major offensives with 1 hex or 2 being the outcome? The rest of the middle east etc might be better... but it would make Italy 43-45 look like the Indy 500!

[RedLancer]

There is good reason that WW1 games are few and far between - trying to code the huge changes in land warfare tactics between 1914 and 1918 is very complex. 1914 had lots in common with 1815 and 1918 with 1945. 1914 had little in common with 1918.

I've been reading Mark Adkin's Western Front Companion and constantly asking how would you turn WW1 into a game.

My initial thoughts are to accurately depict the Western Front you probably need to be at Brigade level with no more than a mile wide hex. I'd look at a WEGO system which would better simulate the problems of outrunning communications and artillery co-ordination.

Were I to create such a game (and I have no coding ability) I'd start small with a Somme / Verdun game before expanding to the whole front. Going big straight away would be like trying to swallow a melon whole.

[carlkay58]

The proper scale for WWI on 10 mile hex and 3 unit stacking is the Corps. You could allow the Corps to breakdown into two (or later three) divisions. The major changes during the war is the annual TOE changes where the number of infantry in a division is constantly reduced while the number of MGs and Artillery are constantly increased. Divisions switch from being two brigades with two regiments to having three regiments and (in some cases) two regiments by the end of the war. The TOE system in these games could actually handle the large changes.

The map would be the largest change. The terrain is more constricted, the Axis supply model (with horse drawn wagons supplying within three hexes of a supply depot) would work, but the rail lines would have to be carefully looked at. I don't think there are major changes in the Western Front rail system but there would be in Italy and the eastern front.

Motorization would go away, vehicles would be there but much smaller numbers, fuel requirements would be minimal. The Naval rules would have to be expanded - the German High Fleet was a real contender and its abilities made the British very wary. So much so that the BEF was transported to France through ports west of the English Channel (fear of UBoats and possible High Fleet interference). Air power would also be drastically different. Non-existent (for all practical purposes) in 1914 but becoming extremely important (primarily in the recon/observer roles) as the war goes on.

But all of those changes are scenario based changes. The actual core engine (other than the naval functions) would probably work well with little or no tweaking.

[JWW]

I always thought the best WWI computer game was Frank Hunter's Guns of August. It is an overlooked gem. Of course the detail is much less than what is being considered here.

[HMSWarspite]

Also, of all the wars of the C20th, the emphasis on economy and certain key R & T choices is huge. The CP economies were not up to those of the Allies, and hence cannot do everything. Thus I foresee all the 'production should be free' debates... And there is a serious point. Even for Allies, the size of army vs training of the same is a huge choice, that, if forced to history could come unstuck. For example, if the line in France stabilizes in a different place the decisions need to be different. If the line was much further east, the attacking imperative for the Allies is arguably less.