Matrix Games Forums

The way I see it land combat would resemble naval combat in many ways.
Players would form land TF's (here after called Battle groups (BG)) then he would plot movement the same as presently done for naval TF. The BG speed would depend on the type of units assigned. Mech units being much faster then leg units.
A BG could disband the same way naval TF's disband. (or transfer units between BG's) Disbanded units would be considered part of the base defense force. Of course every hex would require limits on airfield, port, base size)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)

Why no ability to shadow/intercept? Happened all the time. We just going to pick a hex and hope for the best? Unacceptable. Forces were too small in the Med to spread them out to force a battle...would give convoys and escorts a huge advantage. Either they don't get intercepted by large enemy TFs due to probability or they engage small ones which they can overwhelm because to engage them, they enemy ships had to spread out. At least have it work like sub contact/attacks when ships pass through same hex.

You have no problem with advocating effort to massive revamp of land combat (agreed), but naval deserves as much attention.

There would be abilty to shadow and intercept. The players would alter their TF movement to achive this. I'm just opposed to the system doing the work for the player. If one TF is trying to intercept it reasons the other is trying to evade.
In both UV and WITP I am able to arrange open sea battles. (and I'm caught by the enemy as well when I don't want such a battle) So this already exists.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)

Why no ability to shadow/intercept? Happened all the time. We just going to pick a hex and hope for the best? Unacceptable. Forces were too small in the Med to spread them out to force a battle...would give convoys and escorts a huge advantage. Either they don't get intercepted by large enemy TFs due to probability or they engage small ones which they can overwhelm because to engage them, they enemy ships had to spread out. At least have it work like sub contact/attacks when ships pass through same hex.

You have no problem with advocating effort to massive revamp of land combat (agreed), but naval deserves as much attention.

There would be abilty to shadow and intercept. The players would alter their TF movement to achive this. I'm just opposed to the system doing the work for the player. If one TF is trying to intercept it reasons the other is trying to evade.
In both UV and WITP I am able to arrange open sea battles. (and I'm caught by the enemy as well when I don't want such a battle) So this already exists.

But is it not the design teams intention to make this a strategic game and have the system take care of the tactical? I know, I know, this is confusing in both UV and WITP, where we can set CAP, range, altitude levels but not assign target priority for air groups etc.

I don't disagree with the ability to instigate open sea meetings in UV and WITP, but it is an awkward luck issue that allowes TFs to pass by each other, exchanging hexes no less, with no contact. Not exactly optimal.[8|] And not wanting a battle is not in ones power if the enemy has the speed to close the range.

Hi, I think in Naval History more TF's have been able to evade battle then TF have been able to force battle. Even when one side had "shadow" ships the TF trying to evade was able to do so. Good TF leaders have always been able to out manouver the enemy.

It is awkward it actually is. Many TF have came within the same hex and not had a battle. (depending on conditions TF can be quite close and never see one another, this is how ships collide and how TF's collide producing a battle) Just because you pass within 60 miles does not mean you have any idea where the other TF is. Now the system grants you an automatic battle if you end movement in the same hex. If your TF has a speed advantage it is really easy to figure out where to move to. (Unless the enemy TF knows you are stalking it and takes evasive action) It's actually a lot of fun.

But if the Med game uses 3 turns per 24 hours then it is much easier to arrange a battle.

The Allies know where Axis TF's are going. They are bringing supplies and material to Axis forces in Africa. It should be easy to sit on the supply routes. (enemy airpower allowing)

"If WiR were redone, I would like to see a new system/engine created for it. I do not think WitP land combat routines would do it justice. From a business point of view, it would only make sense to do UV-Med next"
I agree. The UV/WITP engine is designed for campaigns in which naval power played a major and decisive role. In fact the system details naval and Naval Air combat much more then it does land combat, which is rather simple and abstracted compared to the Naval and Naval Air systems. Naval power played a secondary role in Russia, and to do it justice you would need a much more detailed land combat system and would have little need for a detailed naval system since naval power played so minor a role. A new game engine is the only way to go. The UV system would not fit Russia 41/45. The focus is wrong.
In the meantime Schwerpunkt games has a game called Russo-German War 41-45 which although not perfect is still a pretty good game on the same scale that a new WIR would be.
I have heard the UV/MED game referred to as "The Med" as well as "Bomb Alley". I have a feeling it will be much wider in concept then the original "Bomb Alley" covering the whole Med Theater from 40 to 43 (the war in the Med did not start until Italy entered the war in June of 1940).
Actually, the main problem with the Italian Navy was bad leadership. Better leadership could give the British some real headaches in the Med and it will be interesting to play the Axis.

Just so everyone knows, back in 2000 we put a lot of time into the database, map and initial design of a new Russian front game. If I remember it right, it was 10 mile hexes and used a system that was turn based with move/attack in the same phase. This was put on the back burner while we finished UV/WitP and then World at War. We felt that World at War had greater sales potential and after all of the time invested in UV/WitP we wanted to work on something a little simpler. If/when we get back to working on a Russian Front game, it will be the one we started work on in 2000. We know what we wanted to do, just didn't have the time to do it and everything else. Once WitP and GGWaW come out, we have at least 5 games we are interested in working on (the only two you guys know about now are Med War and Russian Front). As usual, our eyes are bigger than our stomachs. We'll just have to all wait and see what develops. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just so everyone knows, back in 2000 we put a lot of time into the database, map and initial design of a new Russian front game. If I remember it right, it was 10 mile hexes and used a system that was turn based with move/attack in the same phase. This was put on the back burner while we finished UV/WitP and then World at War. We felt that World at War had greater sales potential and after all of the time invested in UV/WitP we wanted to work on something a little simpler. If/when we get back to working on a Russian Front game, it will be the one we started work on in 2000. We know what we wanted to do, just didn't have the time to do it and everything else. Once WitP and GGWaW come out, we have at least 5 games we are interested in working on (the only two you guys know about now are Med War and Russian Front). As usual, our eyes are bigger than our stomachs. We'll just have to all wait and see what develops. [:)]

Well it will prove interesting regardless Joel. You guys have always been willing to put your money where your mouth is with regards to quality and as WiTP proves, when you set out to do something? It gets done. That says a lot for the character of a company.

The last post on this thread was 2004 ,we have a new game War in the West and ???? still no Bomb alley lots of talk , bluster and B/S but not even a scenerio in the new game for what is/was arguably the best Gribsby game ever made .

This game can never get so large as to overwhelm the player like War in the Pacific or War in the West , it is the perfect size and historically more interesting than any part of the Pacific War , the Russian Front or War in the West .
This game (imho) will gross more playing time from gronards than all 3 of those massive games combined and especially when it comes down to player vs player as opposed to playing the computer .... a combination of Bomb Alley and Knights of the desert is way overdue .
The massive games produced War in the Pacific , War in Russia and the latest War in the West are nearly unplayable in 2 player because of their size and scope
Comon Joel and Gary enough time has gone by since 1983 to reproduce this master work for the PC

In order to improve the Naval model for a Bomb alley Scenario in War in the West the first thing would be to reduce the size of hexes to 1 or 2 miles instead of 60. IMHO the games being produced are too complecated , expansive to be fun ... A med game with the historical resources available would be much more manageable and playable , I am not buying anymore of these massively unplayable games