Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings interview

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Joe 98
And in any UV in the Med, again you want to control production.

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

I guess by "you all" you are addressing the rest of the posters on this thread and not indulging in lackadaisical Southern American idiom ("Y'all want biscuits or grits?")

I have no interest in controlling production, and never stated any such desire.

My understanding of wargaming is the same as William O. Douglas's understanding of pornography: "I don't know what it is, but I recognize it when I see it."

Why, oh, why would you want to play a game that puts you in the role of a theater commander who is told, "Okay. This is alternative reality, but in real reality, Rome was captured on June 6, 1944. Therefore, the game ends on that date because it is pre-ordained. I am prescient and you are not, therefore, nothing can change." (Jeez, sounds like one side of the "Christian-atheist" debates, doesn't it?)

I want to be in charge of the forces historically available (with reasonable modifications, within scenarios and the scope of the game and its historical context, for gaming interest) if my command abilities are sufficient for me to fight the campaign through to its finish and accomplish more - or, yes indeed, as has often been my fate in UV, less - than those historically in command were able to do. I definitely don't want to fight "WWII on Antares" like so many people seem to want to do, with modifications to the availability of forces and production track dating back to the erecting of Stonehenge. Maybe such games might be fun, but UV is not designed to be one of them.

This last statement is a summary, in the context of this discussion, of why I have ever played wargames (cardboard-and-paper or computer) at all. I want to assume the mantle of command within a historical situation and test my mettle against a worthy adversary, not against artificial constraints imposed rigidly to ensure the historical flow of events and outcome. If this convicts me of lack of understanding, so be it.

[Arnir]

To clarify a bit my comments about production, I think some (perhaps a lot of) production control is a very good thing for a grand strategic game.

For a theatre game like the Med, or even more so for a campaign like UV, production changes would be out of scope. Differing OOB's wouldn't however. It has been a long time, but I think it was some of GG's earlier designs where you could get extra/early reinforcements at the cost of victory points to reflect the impact on other theatres, or vice versa. That struck me as a decent compromise for smaller scale games.

[Fred98]

Yes it was to emphasise my point.

I give UV as an example. The game is a great game but it is aimed at fans of naval wargames.

I am not a naval wargamer but I love UV.

The South Pacific was a series of islands that were constantly short of supplies and short of air cover.

It was a place where aircraft dominated the shipping lanes – increasing the supply difficulities.

Unfortunately the Long Scenario includes all the aircraft carriers that were lost at Midway.

It makes the naval fans very happy. It also means the “feeling” of the game is lost

Yes I have used the scenario editor to bring back the “feeling” but I am baffled as to why I need to.

In my mind examples of alternative history are as follows:

-You have a choice of receiving 3 APDs or 50 B17s

-You have a choice when and where your landing will take place. If you delay the landing the opponent has time to build up his defenses.

That is how I define “alternatives”.

[Fred98]

Originally posted by pasternakski

Why, oh, why would you want to play a game that.......Rome was captured on June 6, 1944. Therefore, the game ends on that date

Answer:

Because if you can take Rome before that date then you are better than your historical counterpart.

Otherwise, how do you define "victory"?

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Joe 98
Answer:

Because if you can take Rome before that date then you are better than your historical counterpart.

Otherwise, how do you define "victory"?

Joe 98,

Yes, but who's to say that taking Rome is all that important to a particular players strategy? Many would say that Gen Clark made a huge blunder by taking Rome on June 5th instead he should have cut east accross the Penisular to cut off the escapeing German Army. What value other than glory was Rome? Thats the problem with haveing historical strategies forced upon player.

[Fred98]

Then please create a victory condition.

[Fred98]

I have a vision. Within the constraints of the Med theatre:

The Italian player must expand his empire as much as possible, anywhere within the theatre.

Historically it started in June 1940 with the attack into France (remain within theatre)

The allied player starts off relatively weak but his strength grows.

Eventually the allied player begins a counter-attack. His strength will tell and the Axis must give way.

There will be many small strategies formed along the way but the biggest decision will be: when to begin the counter –attack.

If the allied player starts too early, his weak forces cannot make an assault.

If he begins too late, as the conservative player would, time runs out : 6th June 1944 was the date Rome fell. And that’s how I hit on the date.

Such a game could encompass all the action in the Med theatre.

If you want to “Control production” (eg swap 40 DDs for one CV) then that is an option. But it needs to be included in the options, not forced on players.

As to he comment about Clark going for Rome instead of cutting across the peninsula: to me that was the last 2 months of a 4 year campaign and is of little relevance. It only becomes relevant if there is a game devoted to the Italian campaign. In which case you still have the problem of which assets are devoted to the Italian campaign. The issue will only go away when we have a global game.

And WITP is so big, I doubt that I’d be interested.

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Joe 98
Then please create a victory condition.

Here's one. Design the game entirely on MORALE. If you can manage to keep the mighty Italian's morale at a given level through the avoidance of combat, they don't surrender until the historical date. If however, players do the inevitable and use Italian units in an ahistorically aggressive and possibly effective manner, the Allied player achieves an early wuss out result and the Italian nation surrenders early.

Actually, this started out as a joke but this will have to be implemented to some degree. How many thousands of Italian soldiers surrendered to greatly inferior forces in North Africa?

Also, the AI will have to be reduced in effectiveness in order to reproduce some of the incredibly stupid moves made by Regina Marina. Like Cape Matapan... Second Battle or Sirte...:rolleyes:

[fcooke]

From Joe 98...

Unfortunately the Long Scenario includes all the aircraft carriers that were lost at Midway.

It makes the naval fans very happy. It also means the “feeling” of the game is lost

Yes I have used the scenario editor to bring back the “feeling” but I am baffled as to why I need to.

Joe - there is a historical scenario w/o all the CVs - Ron & I are playing it now.....

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Joe 98
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.

Ahhh...a man after my own heart. I do, however, also like broader what ifs. This being so, have designers satisfy both camps. That way everyone gets what they want.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
........................

Also, the AI will have to be reduced in effectiveness ......................

??????????????????????????

Don't even say that in jest!:p You trying to reverse the trend?

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by fcooke
From Joe 98...

Unfortunately the Long Scenario includes all the aircraft carriers that were lost at Midway.

It makes the naval fans very happy. It also means the “feeling” of the game is lost

Yes I have used the scenario editor to bring back the “feeling” but I am baffled as to why I need to.

Joe - there is a historical scenario w/o all the CVs - Ron & I are playing it now.....

Frank. I'm wondeing about that historical scenario. Problem here is there was no opportunity for me to initiate the Japanese counterattack without getting utterly destroyed. You brilliantly executed a flawless operation. When you invaded Lunga, every ship in South Pacific was parked in Lunga it seemed. It was a tough enough nut to crack historically, but having three carriers cruising in the restricted waters of Indespensible Strait, with the myriad off escorts and other TFs, was too much for my LBA. By the time my three CVs showed up, Henderson was fully operational (10 days) with all the trimmings, the entire area was mined to the point one could walk across the strait without getting one's feet wet, and tens of thousands of troops were dug in and fully supplied. Can't see how I could have even contested the island. Piddly little Tokyo Express runs would have been decimated as they landed by LCUs and daylight air attacks.

So much for a six month teeter totter struggle I was hoping to recreate on Guadalcanal. It is going to be a much different scenario as you try to advance up the Solomons I hope. My major worry is that with all those combat TFs based at Lunga, we are going to have absolutely ridiculously huge naval battles in treacherous waters. There will be no Kolombangara, Vella Lavella, Empress Augusta Bay etc sized battles as the game allows full committment every time. Just Jutland in a bathtub sized vacuum, over and over. Nothing exists here to limit operations to reasonably historic levels. Too bad...

Still fun though!:D

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Joe 98


As to he comment about Clark going for Rome instead of cutting across the peninsula: to me that was the last 2 months of a 4 year campaign and is of little relevance. It only becomes relevant if there is a game devoted to the Italian campaign. In which case you still have the problem of which assets are devoted to the Italian campaign. The issue will only go away when we have a global game.

Well, it only has revelance because you said that the capture of Rome by a certain date should be the Victory condition. In reality the capture of Rome meant nothing other than prestige. Let me put it this way. Had the Allies not bothered to capture Rome in 1944 would that mean they had lost the Med Campaign? Or if I as a player cut off the German army and completey destroyes it by June 5th 1944, but have not captured Rome yet. I then somehow lose the game????

As far as the US was concerned once Italy was knocked out of the war the Med campaign was complete for all practical purposes. And that happened months before Rome fell. So you might want to make a victory condition of knocking Italy out of the war, which could be triggered by any number of things. That however would preclude a player from trying out other strategies like Churchills "soft underbelly theory". My point is if a player thinks its more important to capture Marseilles than Rome or if he wants to attack thru the Balkans, then why should he be forced to capture Rome by the historical date?

As for victory conditions, whats wrong with victory points for objectives captured and losses inflicted?

Regards

[fcooke]

I think your pilots were seeing things. A CV did end up going to Lunga but I must now admit that that was a mistake (which I must blame on too many beers......). The Hornet was supposed to follow the main CV TF but in my follow orders I somehow screwed it up. I was horrified when she showed up at Lunga. That said, I did pour the entire USN into the effort (which the guys over in Oz aren't too happy with, as your subs have taken a fearsome toll) and the mines did go in early (maybe we need a game with mines banned completely). I agree that US bases can be built up a bit too quick (early stages, up to size 2 or so feels 'right', but beyond that seems too fast). Also hard to recreate a see-saw land battle now with the 2-1 combat odds being so black & white. Maybe we should limit the size/composition of SC TFs and I should sweep the mines around the Canal....

[Fred98]

Originally posted by TIMJOT

As for victory conditions, whats wrong with victory points for objectives captured and losses inflicted?

Thats fine. Thats how UV works.

But UV has an ending date.

You must have the points before the ending date.

So, in the Med, which bases would be the most valuable? Should Rome have a value?

If the fall of Rome is delayed for 6 months, have I achieved success?

As this is not a global game, a line of trenches forming south of Rome is not a victory. The fall of Berlin is irrelevent in a game set in the Med.

[TIMJOT]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98
But UV has an ending date.

You must have the points before the ending date.
__________________________



Yes, I agree there needs to be an ending date. I admit I am not sure what that should be. It probably should be variable depending on a particular game circumstances, with some auto victory conditions mixed in.



(quote)_______________________
So, in the Med, which bases would be the most valuable? Should Rome have a value?
_____________________________


Off the top of my head I would say; Gibraltar, Suez, Alexandria, Cairo, Malta, Tripoli, Instanbul, Marseilles and yes Rome should have a fairly high value for if nothing else than political/prestige reasons.



(quote)_______________________

If the fall of Rome is delayed for 6 months, have I achieved success?
_____________________________


Not if you lost all else.




(quote)_______________________

As this is not a global game, a line of trenches forming south of Rome is not a victory. The fall of Berlin is irrelevent in a game set in the Med.
_____________________________


Thats why I think a Med game would need some sort of variable event engine to model political/strategic events outside the theater. Maybe some sort of prestige point system would trigger reinforcements and or cancell redepoyements out of the theater. For example, An axis player dipping below a certain prestige point level might trigger a Mussolini loses power Italy surrenders event.
Or an Axis player captureing Malta would release additional reinforcements. Just rambling, but the Med sure would make for an interesting game.

[Ron Saueracker]

I should think it should coincide with Italy's surrender to the Allies. When this happens (the surrender) should be based on game variables, not an historic timeline. Perhaps the goal of the game could be bringing about Italy's collapse, not the continuing struggle for Rome afterwards.

Otherwise, the game may get complicated regarding surrendered forces, withdrawls, etc.

Anyone?:)

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by fcooke
I think your pilots were seeing things. A CV did end up going to Lunga but I must now admit that that was a mistake (which I must blame on too many beers......). The Hornet was supposed to follow the main CV TF but in my follow orders I somehow screwed it up. I was horrified when she showed up at Lunga. That said, I did pour the entire USN into the effort (which the guys over in Oz aren't too happy with, as your subs have taken a fearsome toll) and the mines did go in early (maybe we need a game with mines banned completely). I agree that US bases can be built up a bit too quick (early stages, up to size 2 or so feels 'right', but beyond that seems too fast). Also hard to recreate a see-saw land battle now with the 2-1 combat odds being so black & white. Maybe we should limit the size/composition of SC TFs and I should sweep the mines around the Canal....

What we should have done was to brutally lower the commitment levels. Too many friggin ships IMHO. There is already a negative modifier in place for SC TF greater than 15 ships in size and that should be sufficient. I also think defensive minefields are really only effective vs invasion fleets, but I'm not willing to risk surface ships to prove this point. It's moot anyway as no amount of concentrated effort will negate the ENG units effectiveness in keeping the field at Lunga open.

[Fred98]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I should think it should coincide with Italy's surrender to the Allies. When this happens (the surrender) should be based on game variables, not an historic timeline.

Yes, excellent idea.

But the game cannot go on forever, so Italy has to fall before the game ends or the allies lose.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Some of you don’t want the emphasis to be on Rome.

The solution might be to look back at traditional board games where a victory might be determined as follows:

Rome is worth 100 points.

And there are 11 small cities each worth 10 points – for a total of 110 points.

So the allied player has a choice: to win he must either:

- take Rome plus one small city
- or take all the small cities and avoid Rome

And the Axis player has the same choice. Where to defend?

But it gets around the problem of having Rome as the focus.

And my preferred time line is still June 1940 – June 1944.

[mogami]

Hi, Really in my opinion the Med was won when the Axis forces in North Africa surrendered. Italy was a whole new ball game.

Of course if a Med game covering 1940-1944 was made then the scenarios would divide into Axis in NA and Axis defense of Italy.
If the map covers the whole med then do we want the land campaigns in Yugoslovia and Greece included? Delay in the Balkans could upset the start of the Russian campaign.

(It was comitments to Greece that produced Axis victories in NA by drawing away the Allied troops)

Really though where does it stop? Why not just do the whole war in Europe 1939-1945? (Victory conditions get real easy then)