Ideas to bring some international relations and inter-service rivalry into a game

[jdsrae]

Just to see if this sparks some discussion, this is to start a separate thread on this topic to avoid hijacking another.

I was thinking about ways to try and recreate some of the tensions between allies and services, without having to pass a save file between multiple different people.

The main idea for allocation of roles and responsibilities is to insert the role players between the lead player's CIC role and the tactical mouse clicking of entering orders.

1. Main Player: Commander-in-Chief, or Chairman of the Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee.
- Prioritise the spend of Political Points (PP) between each nation or service
- Prioritise and manage industry and the logistics support operations (fuel and supply) to enable the conduct of operations within each Area of Operation (AO)

2. Role Players (countless options here): National Leaders, Service Chiefs; Commanders of Command HQs; possibly some other major HQs to be determined for each game, based on the level of delegation the main player is after and the level of role player interest

3. Main Player: Commander of any Command HQs that don’t have a current or active role player

4. Main Player: Lower level tactical commander of all units in the game, the in-game issuer of orders, within any constraints set by the role players and agreed by the CIC.

The image shows just one idea for how to split the roles up for each side.

Ideas for delegated authority of the role players (TBC for each game, set by the Main Player and by agreement with role players)
- Decisions on transfer of units into/out of their Command HQ command chain
- Clearance for the use of forces outside of their assigned geographic Areas of Operation, AOs to be defined at game start and adjusted as the situation changes.
- Before spending any PP, changes must be agreed by the relevant Command HQs
- PP spent on changing unit commanders would be agreed between the relevant Command HQ and the CIC.

The intent would be for the members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee to have a meaningful impact on the progress and outcome of the game, but leave the mouse clicking to one main player to avoid slowing down the turn rate.

Members of the COSC could also provide suggestions on the subordinate organisation of units in their direct chain of command, such as ships to task forces; air units to Air HQs and air bases; allocation of LCUs to Army or Corps HQs.

Members of the COSC could provide high level “commander’s intent” for operations within their assigned AOs, to guide tactical orders but not get involved in giving tactical orders.

A forum AAR page could be used for communication between CIC and Command HQ role players, to provide visibility of negotiations over prioritisation of resources between nations or theatres and Political Points.

The various in game units would start off being used in their historical Areas of Operation and only move outside that if agreed between the CIC and the relevant role players.

I don't have time for another game as the lead player, but I might be able to fit in a part time gig as GEN Blamey!

[jdsrae]

Possible split of roles for the IJA/IJN.

[btd64]

Check out the RHS scenarios. It setup for team play. Download and read the documents....GP

[BBfanboy]

India, Canada, Australia and NZ would probably line up under the British command because they share the same head of state. Netherlands would likely identify with the British as well because of their pre-war trading relationships and similar empires in the DEI/Borneo area. The US effort in the Pacific really was greater than the rest of the world combined, so you could easily split US/Everyone Else.

The British HQ players would have to mediate PP allocation bearing in mind European Theater demands (where Canada committed its army and AF and most of it navy) and things like replacement rates for expected losses.

[Anachro]

For international politics, don't forget the roles of political figures such as the Australian PM. He could ask for greater presence of US forces in areas of strategic interest to Australia (hold Darwin!, etc.) and demand the return of all ANZAC forces to the mainland/SoPac. Oh wait, now I see you mentioned political leaders. Good.

You can function through two threads where the respective sides have their RP players post from the perspective of their position (with the main player either side posting the relevant AAR updates). Each Roleplayer could potentially have a script to help keep them grounded in the interests of their respective positions. I'd love to partake as a roleplayer, either for Japan or Allies, but am way too stretched to be a main player.

[Sardaukar]

NOTHING can be as bad as IJA / IJN inter-service rivalry...

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

NOTHING can be as bad as IJA / IJN inter-service rivalry...

Hitler and his Generals.

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Each Roleplayer could potentially have a script to help keep them grounded in the interests of their respective positions.

That said, the scripts shouldn't be completely logical and optimized for strategic value. Throw in randomized elements such as personality traits, different strategic values and priorities, etc.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

NOTHING can be as bad as IJA / IJN inter-service rivalry...

Hitler and his Generals.

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Each Roleplayer could potentially have a script to help keep them grounded in the interests of their respective positions.

That said, the scripts shouldn't be completely logical and optimized for strategic value. Throw in randomized elements such as personality traits, different strategic values and priorities, etc.

I'd like to see the script for Vinegar Joe Stillwell's interactions! And Chiang-Kai-Shek's corruption plans while pretending to fight the Japanese.

[dr.hal]

Thanks jdsrae for starting a new thread rather than hijack the other one where we were discussing this concept. I appreciate it. However before this gets too far down the road, I would like to challenge your main assumption of the need to focus on ONE key player doing all the clicking and thus moving.

I would say that with three day turns, the ability to send a file around key area and/or national commanders for their OWN actual input would not be so burdensome and would cut down on the time one individual would have to devote to this game. This would induce a key element into the mix, a fog of war at the strategic level, which is absent from a single player (per side or against the AI) game. To me, this would be vital so as to recreate the tensions that existed not only at the tactical level, or even at the mid level strategy but at the highest level. So before you settle on such a choice, I would like to hear what players thing about it (if you don't mind). There could still be a single player on either side to declare the turn "over" but that person would NOT be responsible for every single move. If a ship, squadron or land unit doesn't get orders, so be it... sort out the chain of command!!!! Thoughts????

[dr.hal]

The key to playability rests on one of two factors, either concentrate all the clicking, etc. into the hands of a single player (as you have proposed) OR evenly distribute the clicking, etc. around so that no one feels an undue burden. If a player only wants to commit to a modest time involvement, he or she could be the British commander, or if that is too much, the Australian commander. Certainly the US commander would be a heavy burden but that too could be split in MANY ways, Army, Navy, strategic air, etc. As indicated the Japanese play could also be subdivided into area locations and even national groupings (Thai?). The Japanese player could also have an industrial director given the need to supervise the Japanese economy!!!!

[pmelheck1]

My impression has always been With the Japanese their military leaders faced assassination over disagreements and I've seen reports of one service sitting on it's hands while watching a sister service being wiped out. I've always thought of all the Militaries in WW2 the Japanese was the most dysfunctional as far as cooperation was concerned, not just between the services but in some cases even within the same service. The Soviets had at least 2 armies attacking each other at the end of the war to be the first into Berlin. The Soviets had some issues with treatment of their own troops but to me that treatment wasn't related to interservice or interbranch rivalry. Germany I recall had a lot of infighting but not to the point of assassinations. Germany also had at times issues with treatment of it's own soldiers but again I don't attribute that to rivalry. I don't recall hearing of major rivalry between the USA services. There is a lot competition between the services like if the Army did it we will do it better for the bragging rights, competition for resources but when push came to shove the services tended to help each other if feasible regardless of the grumbling of the lower racking. This does not reflect individual cases of a local assist but rather institutional rivalries. I'm sure all services, all countries had their medal winners for assistance to others but this is my impression of services in general. As far as game play goes Japanese stacks of units would only contribute a single service defense or attack strength when attacking or defending. Most services tend to have command in place to deal with issues like rivalries but Japan had it the worst of all combatants in WW2 in my opinion. Other nations may have had revelries but not to the extent it needs to be reflected in extra complexity.

[RangerJoe]

How about a new game where if a unit gets conflicting orders, it does nothing. It would be a multiplayer game.

[mind_messing]

There needs to be an incentive and penalties for decisions.

How much, for example, were MacArthur's operations down to his "mythos"?

[Sardaukar]

IJN/IJA issue was so deep that both used their own ships for transportation...

Shattered Sword explains very well the in-fighting. Actually IJA was way more realistic about Pacific operations than IJN.

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

The key to playability rests on one of two factors, either concentrate all the clicking, etc. into the hands of a single player (as you have proposed) OR evenly distribute the clicking, etc. around so that no one feels an undue burden. If a player only wants to commit to a modest time involvement, he or she could be the British commander, or if that is too much, the Australian commander. Certainly the US commander would be a heavy burden but that too could be split in MANY ways, Army, Navy, strategic air, etc. As indicated the Japanese play could also be subdivided into area locations and even national groupings (Thai?). The Japanese player could also have an industrial director given the need to supervise the Japanese economy!!!!

The beauty of this game is that the lead player(s) can pick and choose what works for them for a particular campaign or scenario, but there does seem to be those two main options, or a blend somewhere in between.

I’ve seen lots of AARs go with option 2: with 2v1, 2v2. I’ve heard of one that might have been 3v3, but as the number of people involved with entering orders goes up they would take longer to run a turn. I don’t think something like 9v13 would be workable. Running 3 day turns would help speed up progress but reduce detail which some people might not like.

I can’t recall seeing someone try something like option 1 before, so I might open a “positions vacant” item in my current AAR to see if anyone wants to take an IJA or IJN commission at about the Command HQ level without having to get involved in the daily click fest, and see if it works.