WEGO games, what happened to them?

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If I was an Armored Recon Specialist (aka Cavalry Scout) in Western Europe and stationed where my war time initial duty position was actually near the border, say 50 meters away from the actual border, and the Soviets decided that they wanted to occupy West Germany, I would not want to wait for my turn to move while the Warsaw Pact forces stopped for tea and a smoke. I would mostly definitely want to detonate any explosives that I was supposed to detonate to make any kind of obstacle and then clearly and with due haste depart the area. I would not wait for the Soviets to state "Okay, your turn!" So WEGO works fine for real life. At least for me, anyway. Someone else will wait for their turn while the Soviets kill them.

I wonder how that works for those who don't like WEGO while they drive on the fast highways?

So you would like to take a pause on the highway, and then decide on how to drive for two hours, and then blindly following that course, without any change regardless on how the others move? That is, of course, if you have two hour turns. Maybe a one day turn would be even better? You can drive a long way on an entire day. Although I doubt you get very far...

[;)]

Or didn't I get your point right?

[:)] [:D]

According to what is being simulated, WEGO may allow for the AI to take over and react for unexpected but obvious events [:)] If your tanks, for example, meet some other tanks lying in ambush they will stop and return fire. Of course if they are moving cautiously they get a bonus in spotting and reaction time, while a reckless dash can get them plastered before they realised that they walked into a trap. The same if a semi decides to end up 90° across an interstate [:)]

Also, as in any other simulation, the "turn length" must be chosen according to what you are simulating. This is usually the time needed for a "decision cycle" (plan --> execute --> analyse the results --> go back to step one) for a given situation in a given era. This is valid both for IGOUGO and WEGO. J.D. Webster choose 12 seconds for his "Air Superiority" jet age series - and I guess one can argue for three seconds if you model driving in Rome... [:D]

[wodin]

Battlefront have military contract which uses a military version of Combat Missionx2 engine, which can be played WEGO. This is evidence enough that WEGO gives results good enough for the military so I presume they see it gives realistic outcomes. With John Tiller wargames the engine used by military is the air combat wargame which is a simultaneous mechanic, which is alot closer to WEGOO than IGOUGO. So to say only IGOUGO gives realistic results is really is blinkered. I can't understand why Curtis is so militant like in his view on this. Comes across that WEGO has some how insulted Curtis or some such.

[warspite1]

I suspect that neither method can be proven to be 'right'. Warfare is neither conducted IGOUGO or WEGO. Battles are complex, confused, noisy, brutal affairs undertaken by people without the full understanding of what is going on - not just with the enemy, but often with one's own troops.

At the end of the day wargame makers try and make GAMES that are fun, playable and (to a greater or lesser degree depending on the brief) realistic. They have only certain tools at their disposal and use what they think best to achieve the results desired.

I'm sure both methods can show examples where a particular method has worked and I'm sure everyone can quote examples where the game didn't. I'm equally sure that some like one method over another from an aesthetic and/or playability point of view. And that is fine.

Frankly I couldn't give a toss what method is employed. If the game works then it works; if it doesn't then... oh well, onto the next one.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: wodin
...
Plus the reason I imagine why no one is posting AAR's etc of WEGO games they've played ...

Let it never be said it is not done:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1295

BTW, you are bang on the money when you say WEGO and IGOUGO both have their places and usage and both can be enjoyed and both can provide realistic results (well as realistic as a bunch of pixels or board can be when it concerns simulating warfare).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Battlefront have military contract which uses a military version of Combat Missionx2 engine, which can be played WEGO. This is evidence enough that WEGO gives results good enough for the military so I presume they see it gives realistic outcomes. With John Tiller wargames the engine used by military is the air combat wargame which is a simultaneous mechanic, which is alot closer to WEGOO than IGOUGO. So to say only IGOUGO gives realistic results is really is blinkered. I can't understand why Curtis is so militant like in his view on this. Comes across that WEGO has some how insulted Curtis or some such.

because Bob needs a thread where he can pronounce his views. From experience the location and topic is irrelevant.

I'm currently playing 2 games, one a classic IGO (JTS Campaigns - Normandy) vs AI and one a Flashpoint MP.

Lets take recon as an eg. In the JTS game, I grab a recon formation and move up a road, at some point I find the road is clear as far as I want so put that formation somewhere relatively safe (say a village) and move up the main force. If I get fired on I can then decide whether to commit to that battle or pick another recon unit and see if a different route allows my armour to bypass the problem and leave it to the infantry (prob at least a turn behind). if my second recon also finds the way blocked, I can decide which I am going to deal with, or give up on attacking in that direction.

Given this is the 30 day campaign, I guess I sort of somewhere between a Corps and divisional commander but I have a lot of agency over what may well be a secondary issue.

In the Flashpoint game, I have Soviet recon units out, the following on tank and MRR formations are ordered to move in 40 minutes. My hope is that NATO are hunkered down in an urban area and I can use the MRR to screen or assualt and bypass with the tanks. I have Hinds available but really want them for a different part of the map. Now if my recon find that NATO are weak, I can't hasten my follow on forces, if my recon get wiped out by unseen fire I can't easily replace them.

My opponent is annoyingly good and is hunting my HQs (I'm returning the favour but I know he is well inside my order-loop), at worst, even with the 40 mins delay, my main force is going to follow orders and set off even if NATO are well placed.

My expectation is this will work, get me around his flank and then I can hunt his HQs and artillery.

At the level of my knowledge as the commander, there is little doubt which is the more realistic set up. But the JTS series is well designed and works.

[altipueri]

I've spent too long head in hands as the Hinds (and Tunguska) destroy my stuff and I can't stop it.
Rage quit.

[RangerJoe]

The mistake that I think is that people will move the recon somewhere else and not leaving it as a screening force for the main elements moving up. The recon elements can hide and then spot enemy formations moving up, calling in artillery and air strikes. If enemy forces are hidden and waiting for the main force, then the recon elements may be able to spot them while the main force is coming up.

As far as Hinds go, use laser guided munitions on them . . . [:D]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: wodin
I can't understand why Curtis is so militant like in his view on this.

Well, duh, because he is just as militant about every topic that he posts about. I've never seen him admit being wrong about anything, or even that other points of view have any validity at all. We seem to be in the presence of greatness.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: wodin
I can't understand why Curtis is so militant like in his view on this.

Well, duh, because he is just as militant about every topic that he posts about. I've never seen him admit being wrong about anything, or even that other points of view have any validity at all. We seem to be in the presence of greatness.

I could comment on that but I will not.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

You didn't even read my examples about "where 'historicity' falls?" and "single events more crucial than thousands others", did you? [:-]

I read it, but it was a repeat of the same nonsense you'd already posted: "If a simulator gets different results than history, we should believe the simulator and ignore the history!" Right?

No. That's not what I wrote at all.

That was pretty much the gist of it.

Again: Just because a drunk can drive a car into a ditch is no evidence that the car is defective.

Neither a pilot driving a car once around a circuit proves that the car is safe. Your point?

I've offered multiple examples. Still waiting for ONE from WEGO.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Real life . . . [8|]

I actually find it believable that you go through life as a mindless automaton.

Hmmm... [:-]

(WEGO isn't "mindless automation" anyway...)

Yes it is! There is no human mind that interferes with unit actions during the turn. A handful of rules to apply is not even as sophisticated as the PO - and we all know what an idiot that thing is.

Or France 1940. On May, 10th the Allied enacted the Dyle plan. MEANWHILE Guderian panzers were squirreling in through the Ardennes...

Trying to simulate that with a IGOUGO would simply give the game away. Either the Allies show if they are falling or not in the German trap, or the Germans show if they are attempting the historical plan or going for a variant of Schlieffen's. This is why a good "alternate activation" game like "OCS: The Blitzkrieg Legend" to simulate the historical scenario starts with the forces already deployed on turn two.

Or have a house rule that the northern Allied forces must advance due east into Belgium. That's how SPI's War in Europe did it. Clearly, there's no way to erase players 20:20 hindsight about that particular subject. So some sort of special rules are necessary regardless of system used.

Amazing. He managed to disprove his own ideas without realising it again. [X(]

I guess I'm just supposed to read your mind here? How can any system simulate France 1940 without some sort of special rule to handle the severe 20:20 hindsight issue with that subject?

And France 1944 was a very different subject than France 1940. My example was for the former.

We already knew that IGOUGO wasn't the end answer to everything, thank you.

Plenty of IGOUGO France 1940 games that work - provided they have something to handle the hindsight issue.

Santa Cruz was as WEGO as it gets: the two air attacks literally crossed each other's path while enroute to the enemy.

Tactical naval games in general use a WEGO system. Wooden ships and Iron Men used it. Seekrieg V uses it. The operational part of Great War at Sea uses it. Action Stations uses it. Harpoon 1/2/3, Command and HPS Midway 42 use continuous time...

Absolute classics based on complex mathematical models of real-life weapons' interactions like Panthers in the Shadows and Tigers on the Prowl II used WEGO already back in 1995 to simulate WWII tactical actions.

The only tactical naval games I've ever played used real-time. I still don't see how WEGO is beneficial to tactical actions - unless you shorten the game interval so much that it practically replicates real-time. Under those conditions even IGOUGO would work.

You are offering us your enlightened wisdom about... something you never tried?? [&:]

Until someone actually provides EVIDENCE that I'm wrong!

You people live in a fantasy world. Here's how that world apparently works:

STEP ONE: Postulate a theory.
STEP TWO: It's Miller Time!!!!

Here's how it works in the real world:

STEP ONE: Postulate a theory.
STEP TWO: Experimentally test theory.
STEP THREE: Evaluate theory based upon the test results.

All I asked, originally, was "where is the evidence for WEGO's claims of superiority?"

Still waiting.

You mentioned some tabletop PTO classics. Good games for their time, with campaigns seldom finished and now collecting dust on some shelves. Then Gary Grigsby published Pacific War (WEGO, thanks to the new possibilities offered by computers), Uncommon Valor (WEGO), War in the Pacific ("Uncommon Valor but with the whole PTO?! Where I do sign?" - WEGO); then some fans with a good idea of what they were doing produced War in the Pacific: AE - i.e. the current gold standard for anything PTO (WEGO).

I'd like to see WitP:AE match my Pearl Harbor 1941 scenario. Or my Savo Island 1942 scenario. Or my Okinawa 1945 scenario.

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge about what you think is best [:)]

At least I can vouch for those scenarios - based upon my test results for them!

Again: Where is the evidence for WEGO!!!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: wodin
I can't understand why Curtis is so militant like in his view on this.

Well, duh, because he is just as militant about every topic that he posts about. I've never seen him admit being wrong about anything, or even that other points of view have any validity at all. We seem to be in the presence of greatness.

As I've said: One ad hominem post after another.

Is there anyone here who can stick to the issue?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
As I've said: One ad hominem post after another.

Is there anyone here who can stick to the issue?

Well, since in every thread I've seen you in, you seem ready, willing, and able to engage in rather incredible contortions and hand-waving to disregard any arguments involving facts or logic, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised when people call you out on it.

But don't worry, I don't plan to ever respond to another one of your posts, there's simply no point.

[Aurelian]

I don't know which is superior, and I don't really care, but if you have to rig a game of France 1940 so you can get the historical result, well, then it doesn't really work. And I would *never* play the Allies.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I don't know which is superior, and I don't really care, but if you have to rig a game of France 1940 so you can get the historical result, well, then it doesn't really work. And I would *never* play the Allies.

That's the beauty of "OCS: The Blitzkrieg Legend". Only the "historical scenario" forces your hand by starting on turn 2, with the Allies on the Dyle and the Germans on the Meuse. A variety of others offer from "Hmmm... Wait a moment..." (historical deployments, but with the opportunity for the Allies to change their plans on the fly on turn 1) to "Everything goes. Good luck!" (with both parts having to come up with their plans almost from scratch).

Out of curiosity, I soloed the historical scenario. The Allies can attempt a strong counterattack and I actually got a bit panicky with the Germans (it turned out that I'm not really Guderian...) but at the end the Germans won anyway. It was close, however, much closer than in the real campaign, so I guess that Bob will throw the game under the bus [;)]

[MrsWargamer]

Hmm, we might as well discuss which is superior, a female gamer, or a male gamer

Well, here's the thing that matters most. A woman is always right. If she's wrong, well, I refer you to how a woman is always right.

Hence, women are better gamers.

[RFalvo69]

I guess that the best take-away from this whole fiasco will be this one:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The only tactical naval games I've ever played used real-time. I still don't see how WEGO is beneficial to tactical actions - unless you shorten the game interval so much that it practically replicates real-time. Under those conditions even IGOUGO would work.

You are offering us your enlightened wisdom about... something you never tried?? [&:]

[/quote]

Until someone actually provides EVIDENCE that I'm wrong!

You ask for "evidence that you are wrong" after admitting that you didn't try the alternatives - and thus you have nothing to compare such evidence with? That you don't see how WEGO is beneficial to tactical actions (even if a lot of very respected titles, mentioned by a lot of people here, do exactly that) because you somehow... were "born with the knowledge"? [&:]

That's telling!

You people live in a fantasy world.

Yup, we all. [>:]

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
Well, here's the thing that matters most. A woman is always right. If she's wrong, well, I refer you to how a woman is always right.

Wait! What if a woman admits that she is wro...

Hmmm... On a second thought, scratch that [;)]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I don't know which is superior, and I don't really care, but if you have to rig a game of France 1940 so you can get the historical result, well, then it doesn't really work. And I would *never* play the Allies.

That's the beauty of "OCS: The Blitzkrieg Legend". Only the "historical scenario" forces your hand by starting on turn 2, with the Allies on the Dyle and the Germans on the Meuse. A variety of others offer from "Hmmm... Wait a moment..." (historical deployments, but with the opportunity for the Allies to change their plans on the fly on turn 1) to "Everything goes. Good luck!" (with both parts having to come up with their plans almost from scratch).

Out of curiosity, I soloed the historical scenario. The Allies can attempt a strong counterattack and I actually got a bit panicky with the Germans (it turned out that I'm not really Guderian...) but at the end the Germans won anyway. It was close, however, much closer than in the real campaign, so I guess that Bob will throw the game under the bus [;)]

But I think Bob only wants historical scenarios, where he wins. [:)]

I've played games with people like that. I played game after game of Tsushima with one guy. Everything was fine, until my Russian fleet started winning. Then he started crying about how ahistorical that was.......

[z1812]

Stick to the issue, ignore his posts, and he will go away. This was a fair and interesting thread before we started responding to his need to feed.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
I've played games with people like that. I played game after game of Tsushima with one guy. Everything was fine, until my Russian fleet started winning. Then he started crying about how ahistorical that was.......

I had the same experience with a game of Kasserine. After I won as the Americans the other guy got miffed because "I didn't behave the way the American Army did!" I tried to explain him why while on the way home on my car, but he just started kicking my seat... [:)]