new To the genre and looking for some war gaming advice

[Curtis Lemay]

We shouldn't confuse scale with scope. A game can be tactical in scale and strategic in scope.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

We shouldn't confuse scale with scope. A game can be tactical in scale and strategic in scope.

There also is the concept of "telescoping scale": a strategic game with, let's say, one week turns, that can go down to hourly turns when needed. A good example is Mark Herman's "Pacific War".

"This entire sequence [monthly turns] is set within a telescoping time scale (days to hours) that has naval units seamlessly accelerate (from 12 to 30+ knots), searches seek out the enemy, carriers launch air strikes, combat air patrols defend, culminating with torpedo and dive bomber attacks on individual naval targets. At its core, Pacific War’s game systems allows you to fight detailed carrier strikes (sequential and simultaneous) with night surface naval actions (float planes, gunfire and torpedo salvos) integrated with large scale ground offensives on the Asian mainland..."

[Eambar]

I still enjoy the old SSG Decisive Battles Series - Korsun Pocket, Battles in Italy, Battles in Normandy, Across the Dnepr (1&2) and Kharkov. Throw in Battlefront and they are a great group of games that are challenging and can be completed in a relatively reasonable amount of time.

Cheers,

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: Eambar

I still enjoy the old SSG Decisive Battles Series - Korsun Pocket, Battles in Italy, Battles in Normandy, Across the Dnepr (1&2) and Kharkov. Throw in Battlefront and they are a great group of games that are challenging and can be completed in a relatively reasonable amount of time.

Cheers,

Yes, SSG's games and Command Ops 2, despite their age, seem to have a legendary AI. Both require some study, but I guess that's half the fun!

Best wishes!

[coachi]

Just restarted command ops. Great game with unique realistic concept. I often wonder why it doesn’t have more followers

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: coachi

Just restarted command ops. Great game with unique realistic concept. I often wonder why it doesn’t have more followers

"It plays by itself" and "It is like watching a movie" were two of the most commonly cited reasons back in the day. I guess that some people are not interested in winning.

[mainsworthy]

I have it on 3 monitors, so its modern to me

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

There also is the concept of "telescoping scale": a strategic game with, let's say, one week turns, that can go down to hourly turns when needed. A good example is Mark Herman's "Pacific War".

Wait, what? I thought Pacific War is Gary Grigsby's game [&:]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Grig ... acific_War

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

There also is the concept of "telescoping scale": a strategic game with, let's say, one week turns, that can go down to hourly turns when needed. A good example is Mark Herman's "Pacific War".

Wait, what? I thought Pacific War is Gary Grigsby's game [&:]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Grig ... acific_War

He meant Victory Games Pacific War:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/562 ... -1941-1945

[Eambar]

I have hundreds of hours in CO 1 and 2 and still regularly play it (ie weekly). One of the best wargames ever designed IMO.

There are three aspects to it that are very different to most other wargames.

1. No hexes - there are a few wargames that don't have hexes, or where hexes can be turned off and for players transitioning from board games or those used to playing with hexes, this can be off-putting. It doesn't take long to get used to no hexes but it does make CO different.

2. The game is not designed for you to move every piece. Give an order to a HQ and let the AI do the work. This is encapsulated in the "on-map boss" concept that you may read about in any development notes about the game. Many games require the player to move every piece, and sitting back and watching the AI execute your plan (and not always the way you want it) can be off-putting. The tendency is to want to jump-in and micromanage, but the more you do this, the more the game doesn't work. This could be a hurdle too high to overcome for many players.

3. What is the appropriate level to let the AI execute the plan? What I mean by this is at what level do I issue orders? Let's say a scenario has a divisional structure OOB with a div HQ and a number of brigades. Do I issue orders to the Div HQ to implement the plan, or to the Brigade HQs? Do I go lower - Battalion or Company level? Too low and I suffer from the issues raised above, too high and the plan goes well astray. Each scenario is different but generally I have found the sweet spot to be at the Battalion (Combat Command or Kampfgruppe equivalent) level where the battalion will consist of a number of companies and support units. Occasionally for a simple task I may give orders to the Brigade. This takes some time to figure out and if the new player is easily turned off by having to experiment with the best set up for them, then they will stop playing in favour of games that make order giving and execution far more simple.

To the OP - Command Ops 2 base game with three scenarios is free so there's no financial penalty for giving it a go.

Cheers,

[Fred98]

If one counter = 1 man then tactical
If one counter = 1 squad then tactical
If one counter = 1 platoon then tactical
If one counter = 1 company then could be tactical or operational
If one counter = 1 battalion then operational
If one counter = 1 brigade then could be operational or strategic
If one counter = 1 division then strategic
If one counter = 1 corps then strategic
If one counter = 1 army then strategic

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Fred98

If one counter = 1 battalion then operational

If I recall correctly, Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of Shogun has formations labeled as battalions. I don't think that game is operational scale anymore than Battle Academy is.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Fred98

If one counter = 1 battalion then operational

If I recall correctly, Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of Shogun has formations labeled as battalions. I don't think that game is operational scale

Then the game should be labelled accurately.

[zgrssd]

In my understanding games by Victor Reijkersz/VR Designs tend to have a heavy focus on the logistics side of Warfare.
So if you want a game where that part is not ignored, I would look at his games.