Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand

[Paul2]

There's been a lot of talk about a world level WW2 game. For me , I would agree with Ed Cogburn that I am actually looking for a 'Hitler's War' essentially - WIR combined with SSI's Western Front but with a Sept 39 - Aug (?) 45 timeline. I have very little interest in the Pacific War except how it may have effected USA resource commitment to Europe!
Here goes:-
1) Corps level (with Div's inside - essential)
2) Map from Ireland to Urals, Murmansk to North Africa. 'Box' to represent USA and US mainland resources.
3) Naval warfare boxes - Atlantic and Med - player puts resources in - Uboots, Anti-sub - sea and air etc - diverting resources from land warfare if necessary.
4) More control over production/ research and development - earlier intro of jets etc. More motorization - control production of AFV's/ Trucks
5) Some politics/ diplomacy - independence for Ukraine etc to increase Axis manpower....
6) Would love to see a unit level down to regiment size - not operational, just for interest - i.e another click to see the squad numbers per regiment with historical regiment numbers/ name
7) Scenarios such as 1939-1945, then start times such as April 40 - 'Norway', May 40 - 'France/ Sealion', April 41 'Balkans', June 41 Barbarossa
8) An ability to put the West/ Russia on 'auto' and fight in Africa for instance.
9) Possibilities to strike at the Suez, conquer Britain and free up more forces for Barbarossa, spend more money on tank development and bring in Panthers earlier, rules for V1/ V2 rockets, declining quality of infantry after great losses.
I could go on but you get the drift.

Best regards.

[MagnusOlsson]

While we are dreaming; one thing about a world map is the option to do the Rommel thing - skip russia and go for the oil in Persia and then continue towards India and link up with the japanese.
I've seen it tried (unsuccessfully) in War In Flames (board, not computer) but it is a nightmare to trace supply over the mountains and deserts and ****.

/Magnus

[MagnusOlsson]

Amazing... this thing (the forum sw) has an inbuilt cencorship. It turned my french into ****. Wonder if it handles swedish?

Skit.

/Magnus.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by MagnusOlsson
Amazing... this thing (the forum sw) has an inbuilt cencorship. It turned my french into ****. Wonder if it handles swedish?

Skit.

/Magnus.

Stupid, ain't it? There is no d.a.m.n way to really stop someone who is determined to get around the censorship, so why try?

[Stefdragon]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Stupid, ain't it? There is no d.a.m.n way to really stop someone who is determined to get around the censorship, so why try?

G.O.O.D. P.O.I.N.T., E.D.

[MagnusOlsson]

Censorship marks the obsequy of free speech. We don't want the Matrix forum to become the ossuary of freedom, do we?
Still, I remain pendulous about the censorship; if it could hinder
rapscallions from posting; it would be a bliss. The silencing of the rodomontade of certain kvetchers would be a welcome treat. I remain undecided.

/magnus

[Ed Cogburn]

GG's War In Europe Wishlist, Version 2:

(additions at top)

Play by email support with FULL review. Each player should be able to see EXACTLY what the other player did in the prior move.

Map from Ireland and West Africa, including Gibralter, to beyond the Urals and in the south to Iran. Includes the northern artic area of the Scandinavian countries, Murmansk and Archangel. Let's see the entire war in the north.

A detailed political system, look at Advanced Third Reich for an exampe. A ruleset for Vichy France, Italy, and a possible Commonwealth continuing to fight with the Royal Navy after Britian falls. In particular, a system for variable entry of the US into the war based on world events and Axis action, if Germany declines to DOW the US. Unusual actions like Allies attacking a neutral or Germany attacking Spain or Switzerland should be allowed but should also have diplomatic consequences. Diplomacy should not be an afterthought, but an important part of the game.

Include airborne and engineering units relative to countries's capabilities. Distinguish between motorized armies and non-motorized ones.

Have abstract values to represent a country's military capabilities in terms of organization, logistics, national morale, and maneuver doctrine. Use these values to distinguish between Germany and the USSR in the beginning, but have these values change over time so that the differences slowly dissipate. Represent the other historical capabilities as well, ie Italy is poor in morale and armored capability, the US is nearly equal by '44 to Germany in armor capability but troops are not hardened, Britian has tough troops but does not carry maneuver warfare to its fullest. These values would control how far armored units move, how much supply they carry with them during exploitation, how much damage a corps can take before becoming seriously weakened (German units could take higher losses and yet remain cohesive for example), how aggressive and tough infantry is in the face of an armored attack, what the effects of lack of supply are to a unit including how they react to being attacked while surrounded.

Divisions and battalions should be composed of infantry, tanks, combat vehicles like halftracks and recon cars, trucks which motorize the unit, and guns as in WIR. Independent units should be indicated as to whether they are motorized or not. Self-propelled artillery should be represented. The system should include a modifier for ARTY to represent different capabilities in the use of artillery; in other words don't just count the tubes, count how well they are utilized too. Similarly, AA units should have an anti-personel and anti-armor capability and contribute to ground combat as well as anti-air combat. Consider representing more than one type for each category of gun, such as light/medium/heavy sub-categories.

Corps level, with "smart" counters. The screen icons for the corps show size (XX or XXX) and strength dynamically as the player changes the contents of the corps or moves it and it loses readiness and expends supplies.

Battlefield intelligence is more accurate and detailed, based on air superiority and how long you've been in contact with the enemy. If you spend 3 weeks adjacent to an enemy corps you should have a good idea of its composition.

Allow overruns. This would reduce the success of using thin screening forces, or single division suicide units, and eliminate the "battalion-sized corps" silliness as currently in WIR. If you stick a lone battalion out there, I should know that immediately, the difference between a battalion and multiple divisiions being obvious, and just overrun it without thought. It would also help simulate more accurately the initial blitzkrieg, particularly of Barbarossa.

Allow air units to base on the map, but still be assigned to Army HQs. Have fighter units be more active, have an air superiority phase were fighters fight automatically to see who owns the skies over the hexes.

Real honest to god hexes please, but align hex orientation so that east-west/west-east fighting only provides 2 adjacent squares, since most fighting in Europe was east-west or vice versa, not north-sourth/south-north.

Production system that includes training and population. Pilots have to be trained, same for tank crews. Better training takes more time. In reality Germany in '45 was producing more tanks than it had people to put in them. Their training for pilots was excellent but could not meet demand as the war progressed. Let the player choose the tradeoffs. Manpower pressures should be accurately represented: the needs of the military versus the needs of the economy and industry back home.

Research should by open ended to allow players to take dramatically different strategies, but also include an historical system where research is done automatically to reflect history.

Abstracted naval element, this is a ground war. However, provide accurate representation of naval logistics's impact on ground campaigns. Abstract naval operations as in Third Reich.

Logistical system should represent the differences between motorized transport and non-motorized transport. Supplies, and especially fuel, should be something that requires production to "make", and therefore a commodity in finite supply and vulnerable to strategic air attack. If necessary, split "resources" of WIR into specific sub-types, and provide "factories" or production centers for these resource types.




Anything I missed?

[Delta-V]

I agree on the extend map. It would be very interesting to fight the North Africa battles in support of the European war.

It's probably masochistic, but one thing I'd like to see is the ability to drop down from the division-level strategic map and fight the tactical battle. Sort of like a merger between WIR and East Front.

[Butcher White]

ADG (the guys who did Empires in Arms) are working on a computer version of World in Flames. It is functioning, but no AI as yet.

It is a pretty good corps level game.

Maybe they and matrix games could hook up on this as well.

[Hoplosternum]

I am looking forward to Computerised World in Flames but I have got to say that it is going to be a let down for anyone who does not know and play the Boardgame.

Leaving aside any AI or not the game is just going to be unmanageable. WiF is a boardgame designed to be played face to face. You have to make decisions on CAP, air and sea interceptions etc. at many times during your opponents turn. This does not really slow face to face play but unless you are all linked up by LAN (or playing solo) it is going to be very very hard going.

Also while WiF is a fairly in depth strategic game with lots of combat bonuses, build options and resource allocation / supply decisions it is at it's heart a boardgame. That means that the combat is fairly simple. You're searching for 3:1s or their equivalents, your Corps after combat are either destroyed, flipped (unable to do anything for a while) or absolutely as good as new. In a boardgame this makes for a neat board and no bookkeeping but a computer can easily handle step losses and temporary reductions in strength plus far more variables and ranges of outcomes in battles. Likewise supply is an all or nothing proposition in WiF. Again this is great for keeping the game manageable as a boardgame but is unrealistic and not really necessary in a computer game that can handle these things so easily. Research options are absent from the boardgame. You can easily see why - it already runs to many thousands of pieces never mind having to have thousands of 'research' alternatives. But a PC can handle such things easily in it's unit database.

I cannot see the attraction of so many direct boardgame ports. PCs can imitate the clunky, unrealistic and simple game mechanics but cannot mirror the diplomacy and player interaction which made the boardgames so enjoyable in the good old days when we played them. i.e. they recreate the worst parts of the game. Just look at the PC version of Diplomacy to see this at it's most extreme. Single player was pointless - who wants to play Diplomacy with no real diplomacy?

For all WiFs thousands of pieces and scope it deals out a combat model (especially on land) considerably worse than say the Clash of Steel one. Why spend countless hours wrestling with the monster of a game (and waiting for endless player responses if playing against someone) just to get that? Now if playing face to face you'll happily make that sacrifice. The boardgame would not be improved by every piece having a step counter underneath, an experience counter and a supply and / or fatigue marker - it's quite big enough. But these would all be seamless improvements in a computer version.

I wish ADG had decided to make a game based on WiF and put it on the computer. The Maps, most of production, many of the rules are there already but just one utilising a bit of the PCs power and automate some of the opponents responses (essential for any sort of MP play). It could be a great. As it is it will likely only be bought and played only by those who no longer have room or time to spread out all the maps and counters for solo games If Matrix are wise they would not touch it with a barge pole, but I suspect that they are in discussion. The WiF project is being done by just one person at the moment (Chris Mancinni iirc).

[Butcher White]

I couldn't agree more, but the point you are missing is cost.

I know exactly why board game ports are prevalent, it is because they are cheap. The design work is done and game balance and mechanisms are sorted out already.

Developing the computer games described above doubles the risk of a project, a new application (in the software sense) and a new game (in the design sense). The chances of getting something stunning out of the combination of these two imponderables is low, hence the small number of truly successful TBS games.

[Hoplosternum]

I suppose you are correct that cost plays a big part

However play balance is not necessarily that hard in a game like WiF. To put it crudely there is not much now and if you play it competitively then it is done by a bidding system / objectives.

I do not design or write PC games but I would have thought that a huge amount of the time and effort is spent in creating the maps, graphics, database and it's alterations in game etc. etc. rather than in purely designing the mechanics of combat. Which anyway could be based on experience from making games beforehand (they would have some ideas of what works and what doesn't etc.). In WiFs case you could simply add a few extra factors to the current system (experience, fatigue, supply, combat losses etc.) to greatly improve the system.

I believe that a large part of the porting of boardgames comes down to a marketing decision. They believe a WW2 game called world in Flames will sell better than one called WW2. This is because it will attract those who have played the boardgame as well as those interested in the subject matter. It should also give some credibility to the game to those who are WW2 enthusiasts as it suggests the game has some pedigree. I just think this is a mirage because the game they make is so much less capable and less satisfying than it should be. Word of mouth (or discussion board ) is probably quite important in the Wargame industry now.

[Butcher White]

Funnily enough, the fact that they spend a huge amount of time on the maps graphics is probably the major complaint of most people on this board.

Cheers