Matrix Games Forums

Ed is half right with his assesment of Schwerpunkt's RGW. Some time back, I was trying to get ahold of Leneigrad, Kiev, and Izyium. Someone at Schwerpunkt told me those games were no longer being published. But, to wait until RGW was released as they would be included as scenarios in it. Then I was told that RGW would include a complete campaign of the entire Russo-German War. I was not lead to beleive it would be a series of "linked" scenarios. I have Storm in the West and Smolensk to Moscow and they have a very clever combat model, that works well for mechanized warfare at the scale of the games. Of course RGW will not be a game that covers the detail available in WIR.

victorhauser: There are many things I prefer about WIR, as opposed to RGW, but then again, I don't know precisely how RGW is going to work, and certainly the idea of resources being allocated to you strictly based on how long you hold cities is a rather abstract but good idea on putting some meaning into the battles along the way to final victory.

One thing I rather dislike about RGW, is the 5-5-6 sort of rating for units. Gary's WIR model that has individual tanks to form combat values, more intricately, I much prefer, but then again, how many wargame makers are doing it Gary's way? Let's see.....there's Gary and ....... So that's why I'm not too disappointed with the more generic rated units in the game, though, if we're really going to be seeing 2700 units, with the added ability to strengthen weak units, disband units, and create new ones from saved points, we may be seeing a system that on a strict RGW vs WIR comparison, that we may prefer the freedoms of RGW to the listing of individual tanks (which we could barely control production for anyway).

One huge positive we may be seeing is individual engineer/bridge-laying units and so on, which proved quite fascinating with TOAW. If the entire East Front is truly covered with 10 mile hexes, well, it just blows me away. I understand that also naval forces will be included, something WIR was missing. I do wish, however, that they didn't have the war ending in late '44, and carried it out to it's full length, but given that they would then have to include Germany and perhaps other countries in what must already be a humongous map, perhaps it's better as they're designing it.

Seems that we are back to the question to a successor for WIR. WiTP is fine but we are still waiting for a playable WWII simulation. Schwerpunkt has choosen to limit its game to Russia ans I totally agrees. I am tired of all the games with great potential play, but in practise, are beyond reasonable reach for completion. Even 176 game turns is already too long.
Given the reputation of quality of Schverpunkt Games, it is really possible that we are on the verge of seeing a new classic. Only some weeks to wait.

My apologies Charles, RGW does have a campaign scenario for the whole enchilada. I read what they have on their web site. The article on Computer Games Online called it an operational game and mentioned the scenarios, except for the campaign scenario.

Like you though I am concerned. How will the replacement/production/resources work? Are they going to tack on a production system at the last moment because well into the production of the game they decided to include a 176 turn campaign scenario? Will we have any control over that production system? We clearly aren't getting anything like WiR.

I also have some big problems with this game. A. Using a six-sided dice to determine combat results? This is a freakin' computer game, we don't need dice! They aren't computerizing a board game, so why *design* a computer game that emulates dice? B. Using fixed numbers for attack/defense/movement on the units? Why not dynamic numbers ala Clash of Steel? C. Stacking allowed as much as four units deep... eek! D. Where is Germany and south-eastern Europe? E. And a scenario with 2700 units? This reminds me of some of those outrageous (read: MASSIVE) Operation Barbarossa scenarios designed for TOAW. For me the scale is too small, and the campaign game is too huge.

Hey everybody, if you can hack out WIR, then 176 turns isn't too long, for WIR is longer than that. Now, maybe, with 2700 units (1350 per side or so?) the turns will take immensely longer, but I doubt it will be too terribly much longer than WIR, for a great many of the units always end up pretty much sitting there after the '41 offensive. Perhaps Schwerpunkt will have a way to give attack orders to an entire corp if you wish, or down to the individual levels.

From where I stand, if within the framework of the game, any game, if the trying periods for my side, are rewarded by strength later on (Russia 41-45 for example), then I can hack out those long defensive periods, BUT, if the game is as massive, or larger, than the TOAW Gotterdamerung campaign, where the Germans are weak and have no hope of doing much, then I see it as a waste of time, but at least RGW won't have that problem.

Six-sided dice? UGH!!! I hope they scrape that idea. Shoot, at least use 100 factors instead of six. With six, or even 10 factors, it looks to me as though there's just too much potential for a bunch of luck shots.

Actually I liked the Barbarossa TOAW campaigns, for the size didn't bother me, for one of them was very much like WIR in number of units and turns. There was one which was corp level, and it didn't have enough units to make a front line; totally not worth playing (though I believe you could split the corps, but then the splits were only generic units, not historic divisions). Actually, the one that was very much like WIR, I had a problem with because it didn't allow the Rumanians to go with Army Group South from 6/22 like WIR did. I don't know what's historically correct, but it's aggravating to see one game that enables you to move them and another that makes them wait like a month.

I had thought about what I said about WIR being more detailed with unit strengths and so on, and I do now recall that TOAW did sort of the same thing.

As far as the game only being on Russian turf, I guess I don't have a problem with that, if they declared the game as 'the defense of Russia', the only problem, though, is that it's called RGW. RGW didn't end in '44 when Russia was liberated. So what the user will have to do, is imagine when playing the Russians, that the war ended with kicking Germany out. That's sad, but then again, if the game has a massive Russian map as 10 mile hexes suggests, and has such a massive amount of units, then not having anything but Russia would shorten the game a bit. I suppose for all practical purposes, whether the Germans are succeeding or the Russians, by late '44 the war is all but over anyway, but still...

Ed, you state 'They aren't computerizing a board game'. Well, even though the board game never existed, that is exactly what they are doing, for better or for worse. All their games have this characteristic.

Their reinforcement/replacement model is overly simplistic, but has the hugh advantage that it obviously will work since it is simple. That has the overwhelming advantage over numerous games which never made it to the street. They are taking the historical level of reinforcements and of replacements. If things go bad for you, you can eliminate reinforcement units, with their components being moved to the replacement pool. The historical rate of replacement/reinforcement will be modified by a points accumulation where cities are assigned a point value. I assume this will be a simple ratio of points obtained vs hitorical points which is then used to accelerate or decelerate the arrivals. I do wonder how this would get untangled relative to, in particular, Rifle Divisions which were historically destroyed and came on as new units, but would not necessarily be destroyed in this game. Also, conversion of Rifle Divisions to Guards Divisions seems tricky. Maybe they would just let the player choose.

If you have specific questions, e-mail Ron Dockal at Schwerpunkt. He responds quickly and precisely to questions. No BS, unlike many we can think of.

Paul

Charles22:

Too bad it was simply a mistake on your part. I know of some democratic lawyers who are looking for new clients.

Paul

Originally posted by Charles22:
Actually I liked the Barbarossa TOAW campaigns, for the size didn't bother me, for one of them was very much like WIR in number of units and turns. There was one which was corp level, and it didn't have enough units to make a front line; totally not worth playing (though I believe you could split the corps, but then the splits were only generic units, not historic divisions). Actually, the one that was very much like WIR, I had a problem with because it didn't allow the Rumanians to go with Army Group South from 6/22 like WIR did. I don't know what's historically correct, but it's aggravating to see one game that enables you to move them and another that makes them wait like a month.

Do you remember the exact name of the Barbarossa scenario you liked? I've downloaded a couple but can't tell whether they are separate implementations, or just later versions of one another. All of them look intimidating in size. If you can steer me to the best one, I'll give it another go.

Ed Cogburn: Actually, I did and didn't like it at the same time. I didn't like it because the Rumanians were delayed a great deal, but I liked it because it resembled WIR quite a bit. I'm not too sure which one it is anymore, but I'd recognise it really easily by there pretty much being a widespread front for the Axis, resembling the one in WIR (and no corps, but historic divisions instead). It may had been the one called 'War in the East' (it's certainly not the Barbarossa one, for that one lasts only till '42), but I could be mistaken. Unfortunately I'm at work right now, and when I get home I'll see if I can figure out which one it is.

PS-You might want to check out the NAfrica 41-43 campaign, though I've never played it past the first three or four turns (haven't gone any further with the WIR campaign in TOAW either, not too much for lack of interest, and certainly not because I don't have enough time, but mainly because I'm still sort of figuring out the system and whether I want to play something that's so wapred in it's treatment of air/sea units). I'm not saying it's not worth the effort, as far as conquering goes, but there's no real strategic tie-in if I recall correctly, but then what TOAW campaign does? I think I pretty much stopped playing TOAW, because I got frustrated with the inadequacy of the treatment of air/sea units and got more interested in SPWAW and currently SE4, though I'm sure I'll probably be toying with TOAW in the not too distant future again.

Ed Cogburn: I've found the WIR similar campaign for TOAW which I spoke of, though the Finns aren't a part. In my files it's called: Russian War PO 1.1.