Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by David Heath
Hi Guys

The med is the next game planned in the series. It will be based more on the UV then WITP. Of course we may change our minds but that is the plan.

David

Excellent, excellent, excellent...

I dont know guys...the way the Commonwealth suffled
assets BOTH in and out of theater, would make the Med a
VERY difficult simulation. Just look at Campaign for North Afrika.
Its a nightmare of moving units.

Just a comment

The elements are all there.

Situation: two powerful navies....one stretched and harried, but harboring a deep confidence and conviction, a determination to see things through come what may and a rich hertitage to fall back on.

The other.....a more recent entity, uncertain, powerful with great potential and a desire to absolve the past.

I say bring it on because dag nabbit....."Bomb Alley" is just a little too dated after getting used to UV

UV in the Med would be great.

The ground combat routines need to be amended.

For the Grand Campaign, the starting date would be June 1940 with the Italian invasion of France.

And end on 6th June 1944 - with the fall of Rome.

There would need to be a hex called "New York" and one called "Hamburg" somewhere west of Gibraltar to represent both ports in the game.

It must be on the scale of UV - not WITP.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I dont know guys...the way the Commonwealth suffled
assets BOTH in and out of theater, would make the Med a
VERY difficult simulation. Just look at Campaign for North Afrika.
Its a nightmare of moving units.

Just a comment

I dont know Chiteng, they didnt really shuffle many units out (land units at least) excluding the Aussies of course and for Normandy, but by then the campaign should be over.

Remember its not just N.Africa its the Med, so UK units shuffled out of N. Africa to East Africa, Palastine, Syria, Greece, Crete would be emcompessed within the game. It would be the player's choice when and where these units would be deployed.

IMO, the UV engine is perfect for the Med. They just need to beef up the land combat model and add some sort of politcal/theater/event variables into the mix.

IMO, the UV engine is perfect for the Med. They just need to beef up the land combat model and add some sort of politcal/theater/event variables into the mix. [/B][/QUOTE]

And the fact that Allied sigint was reading the majority of Axis naval codes; I'm curious exactly how that will be handled.

And the fact that Allied sigint was reading the majority of Axis naval codes; I'm curious exactly how that will be handled

No fog of war for the Allied player!

Let's see you play THAT game and win :p

How would the German Para's be handled?

We should be able to drop on Malta what, a division?
Like Crete.

Hi, There would have to be a "Rommel keeps the Luftwaffe" option. (making any airdrop on Malta impossible)

But if it were possible there would be 3 airborne div at least (2 German and 1 Italian)

Normandy was the 6th JUne 1944

Rome fell on 6th June 1944

It seems to me that a UV in the Med would end on 6th June 1944.

Originally posted by Joe 98
Normandy was the 6th JUne 1944

Rome fell on 6th June 1944

It seems to me that a UV in the Med would end on 6th June 1944.

No, no, no. This is imposing actual history on alternate history. There is no guarantee that the Normandy invasion will take place when it actually did, or for that matter, where it actually did. A lot depends on how well things went in the Mediterranean theater. Suppose, for example, that Rome had fallen in mid-43? What would that do to the "second front" timetable? Could you have prevented the Italian campaign from turning into a bloody stalemate?

Suppose that Avalanche was a failure and Rome never fell? Suppose that the Germans had invaded Spain to capture Gibraltar? Suppose that the German assault on Crete had failed? Suppose ...

You get the idea. This is one of the richest of WWII theaters for speculation. I didn't even start on the possibilities that ensue on greater or lesser success by the Afrika Korps (for that matter, you would be commanding Rommel and the boys if you take the German side, so look out Alexandria and points east). The idea of commanding the forces responsible for the capture - or defense - of Malta is enough to make you wanna fork over the dough for this one. Think of commanding those beautiful white ships of the Regia Marina ... Cape Matapan, here we come.

What a great subject for a game. I agree completely with those who have said that UV is the perfect engine for it. The busy folk at Matrix/2by3 will have a jolly time enhancing the ground combat and movement mechanics.

Just think - Patton could be your subordinate. Could it get any better than that?

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Overlord was the top priority operation, and nothing that happened in the Med (or at least nothing that could realistically happen) would have changed that. You need to read up on the debates between UK & US at Casablanca, and so on. Roundup (the previous plan for the second front, before Overlord) always had priority on troops and equipment. Finishing the Med in June 1944 sounds very sensible to me, with the measure of success being how far up Italy (or the Balkans - this is a concievable variant) the Allies got. It would need some form of political modelling for Italy changing sides, and German take over of defenses.

The Med - how about a scenario where the Germans turned south after France, as I think Guderian & others advocated. Invasion of Spain (or Spain joins Axis); option for Germans total French surrender, so no Vichy; maybe early US intervention to balance things ...

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Overlord was the top priority operation, and nothing that happened in the Med (or at least nothing that could realistically happen) would have changed that. You need to read up on the debates between UK & US at Casablanca, and so on. Roundup (the previous plan for the second front, before Overlord) always had priority on troops and equipment. Finishing the Med in June 1944 sounds very sensible to me, with the measure of success being how far up Italy (or the Balkans - this is a concievable variant) the Allies got. It would need some form of political modelling for Italy changing sides, and German take over of defenses.

Waspite, I agree that was the case historically, but Pasternaski is saying what if the Med situation was drastically changed. Say Malta, Alexandria, Cairo and Suez are captured. The Mideast oilfields threatened and French North Africa is occupied. The situation in the Med could have delayed "Overlord".

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, There would have to be a "Rommel keeps the Luftwaffe" option. (making any airdrop on Malta impossible)

But if it were possible there would be 3 airborne div at least (2 German and 1 Italian)

I disagree Mogami, why should there be an option that forces the player to make the same historical decisions? Should there be an option in WitP that forces Midway then?

Any attack on Malta should only be limited by force availability and or capability not on the historical whims of one particular commander.

Regards

I believe that this discussion is why some of us really like strategic gaming that allows for a lot of what-if decision making. Churchill complained in his history of WWII that far more could have been done in Italy if landing craft reserved for Overlord would have been made available in the Med. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but it illustrates the interconnected realities of global warfare.

That's why I like to be able to alter aircraft production, for example, to try out different strategies. I think a player ought to have a great deal of control or perhaps not much over the big picture. (I know that a theatre commander doesn't make those decisions, but for me a lot of enjoyment in what-if gaming rests on changing the parameters to truly see what-if). If I am truly playing a theatre commander then I have no problem with the game ending June 6 or whenever. If the CJCS says no more landing craft, that's life. If the Med was going horribly but the powers that be decided to go into France to take the pressure off, that makes sense as well.

Anyway, the point behind this rambling is that I think that players either need great ability to alter the strategic reality to model changes in the hypothetical universe, or they need to be more rigidly controlled by outside events. Leaving it in the middle is just very unsatisfying to me.

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

Apparently the same sources you consult tell me a different story. Overlord was scheduled in direct reliance on transpiration of events in the Mediterranean theater. It was these events, in part, that caused Roundup to be delayed and become Overlord. Refer back to the material covering landing craft shortages and how this affected scheduling of operations in all areas.

Again, though, it's a case of not letting history dictate alternate history. If all we can expect is a game that we know will end on June 6, 1944 notwithstanding the "reality" of our situation both as theater commander and both arbiter and tool of the "history" we are living, count me out. I've read the history. When I'm playing games, I want to make a different history, not just go through the historical motions.

Mr. Pasternakski, I couldn't agree with you more.

This subject has been debated on these forums before. There is a fine line. I for one can't understand why anyone would wan't to play a game where nothing is in question? Where all outcomes are predefined? If you wan't that, watch the oscars.

Got me

Every body agrees on the point that when you alter something, it will have an affect on something else.

And so it is that in WITP, you all want to control production.

And in any UV in the Med, again you want to control production.

But if the asserts are going to the Pacific how are they going to get to the Med?

And why is it always to your advantage?

How about “Japan delays Pearl Harbour for 12 months, the USAAF delays its arrival in England by 12 months and the German war machine pours out enough assets to stop the Soviets and take North Africa”. And allied bombers have no chance against the swarms of German jet fighters.

How about Turkey joins the war and attacks into Southern Russia? There is no Stalingrad, USSR falls and German troops are sent to the West – the Normandy invasion fails.

Not only that you all seem to mis-understand wargaming.

Rome fell on 6th June 1944. In a wargame you must be constrained with the same problems as your historical counterparts.

You must take Rome by that date or the Axis player wins the game.
(again for emphasis)
You must take Rome by that date or the Axis player wins the game.

You are playing against, your opponent, not against Roosevelt.

The standard scenarios must be historical. If you want non-historical scenario you use the scenario editor.

Instead, if you control production, you get B52s in 1944.

Joe 98,

Perhaps just because someone does not think exactly as you do they might, just might, still understand wargaming. Different wargamers have different expectations. Most wargames, IMHO, are played to see if you can do better than the historical outcome, whether that be holding out longer than history or getting the job done quicker. And yes, a player must react to his/her opponents actions not those of history. (Alternatively, people like me play the games to have fun but also learn about the history of the event. We are probably the ones that are the first to scream about something being gamey. <G> )

All that being said, if, and that is a very big if, the game wants to allow for greater deviation than the historical pattern, it has to be done carefully. I agree that those deviations should take into consideratio the demands of other theatres. If any commander could have whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it, there would be little drama to the events.

However, I must say, and my apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your comments, but your statement that "The standard scenarios must be historical. If you want non-historical scenario you use the scenario editor," strikes me as being extremely arrogant. Perhaps it is just the way you wrote it, but I'm not sure why your declaration must stand? If the game programmers want only historical scenarios, great. If not, great. And, your comment about B-52s in 1944 is asinine. I will assume that you were exagerating to make a point, but I think it weakens it instead. Different production strategies could result in more/less fighters, more/less strategic bombers available, etc. All of which would present different challenges and opportunities to the player. I doubt if the designers would allow too much "future tech" to be intoduced. (Just a guess).

I would state w/o any reservation that pure historical campaigns and scenarios are desirable if not mandatory, and they are my personal favorite. If the designers, however, want to add alternatives, then more power to them, IMHO.

As a lurker and only recent poster, my apologies to the community if my views are unpalatable. I firmly believe, however, that there are many different ways to enjoy this hobby w/o trying to dictate to others.

To reiterate an earlier post of mine, personally I think that if the purpose of the (a) game is to have the players face the same challenges as the historical counterpart, alternative histories should probably be extremely limited. However, if the goal is to allow players to have greater latitude, then give as many options as possible. These should include things that might not be pleasing to the player. I agree with Joe 98's comments about negative consequences or events need to be present.