War in the West

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


You know....this is actually pretty funny....and part of the humor is that your dead-on re: some of the inevitable reactions (i.e. Lets quote Glantz....or [insert Historian here] We have ALOT of that over on the AE and previously the WitP forum.

If there's a fault in GG designed games....its the same feature that makes his games so addictive. Detail Control with a carefully crafted illusion of detailed representation over an engine that ultimatley employs a boatload of Randoms. [:D] What you describe here is the same problem as in WitP. From Turn 2 onward, the Allied side does not react and fight in the way they did historically.

I see your point, but there is one contradiction or paradox. Forcing the Allies (or any side) to do more historical stuff inevitably means that the games get more predictable, not less, surely?

If the Soviets in WitE get to withdraw to a line along the Kursk and Smolensk axis in 1941 rather than defend forward, the AXIS don't have to go for the oil, defend forward in the Ukraine so they are exhausted before they can fortify the Dniepr etc in 1942/43.

For me, give the sides what they had, introduce rules which reflect the differening capabilities and doctrines (doctrine tends to be the thing that gets missed) and let people get on with it.

A War in the West has even bigger challenges. I remember back in the day geting a copy of the 8Bit "Western Front" game simulating D-day onward and being all excited after years of re-playing War in Russia. I never even ended up finishing a single game. It was so boring. Once the Allies landed it was a forgone conclusion. The Allied side ruled the air....had virtually unlimited logistics and more strength. One can get around this in part by representing more of the West.....(like France 1940) but its like you said. First thing thats going to happen is the Allied (French) player will immediatley fall back on the defensive setting up a multi layered tiered defense and the Germans can thus beat their party insignias against it. [:D]

I'd agree that Allied air and naval power in 1944 means this segment of the game will likely only ever play one way. The only interest in this game is when it is linked to WitE because at that point, you might conceivably be able to shift other assets into theatre (with the likely result you might hols the allies up for another week[;)])

The interesting one is France 1940. An Allied Commander will not get caught out by the thrust through the Ardennes, and at that point, you're completely into a new world. Of all the new possibilities, this is the most interesting since you have two numerically matched sides with a few interesting equipment differences but possibilites all over.

1) Don't overfocus on detail control/representation. Newer doesn't have to mean more and more micromanagement and screen clutter as one attempts to represent every device/unit and the seperate exp values of each.

I'm not sure this is an answer. As long as the detail can be micro managed by friendly AI, I don't see it does any harm.

2) I always thought Norm Koger's "Operational Art of War" had a great idea in utilizing "Trigger events" that until tripped would lock down elements of the player's side or at least restrict their options. This feature represented the "Higher political/military" powers constraining you....the Theater commander from just doing whatever the hell you want. Just a thought. WitP tried to crudely simulate elements of this by use of "Political Points" but it was restricted mainly to buying off land and air units from certain Theater commands that otherwise can't be moved from their area of deployment. Once "Bought" you had the typical Total Control of that unit. One can expand on this by having certain requirements at game start for the player like "You are not authorized to conduct a mass withdraw into the interior in order to [magically] counter a new form of warfare that the enemy will deploy against you"

This worked in some TOAW scenarios, but it won't create more variation as the initial complaint seemed to be aimed at. Forcing the Russians in Russia and the Germans in France to fight forward will produce just as stereotypical a game as the current hindsight driven strategies produce.

3) maybe a more dynamic AI in which your not just either one side or the other....but have the option to have the AI control one nation......say the UK Expeditionary Force while you control France.....or vice versa. Imagine your consternation if your best laid plan is laid waste by a sudden withdrawl by your "ally" (as historically happened at one point in 1940)

Wouldn't work for PBEM. I wouldn't want to lose my half of a mirrored PBEM because I rolled a three and he rolled a six. Also, as a Brit, we didn't lay anyone's best laid plans to waste....[;)] With the front fractured, Germans in our rear, we got across the channel in order to fight another day. This wouldn't be a "sudden withdrawal" event, but a "Your Allies did the only sensible thing left for them to do" event....[;)]

Respect and regards,
ID

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




In real life, it often is a foregone conclusion who will win and how.

Agreed. The Axis never had a shot at winning World War 2 given the theaters on which they chose to fight it and the means by which they chose to fight it. That being said, it can be argued plausibly that China won World War 2 if we examine the last 75 years, so I'm not especially affected to reconsider my stance given the fact.

Therefore, a game whose mechanics create that effect (all other things like player skill being equal) strikes me as detailed and accurate rather them something to criticise. Throw in a committment to implement user feedback and clean up issues, improve the interface and add new features (The Hiwi stuff in 1.05 looks an excellent addition) and I reckon we should count our blessings. We are a niche market, completely ignored by major software developers, who are still getting first class products because of companies like Matrix and 2by3.

Again, agreed.

As for the chrome, just check the forums for this and WITP. It's the attention to detail that completes GG games for many people. For every Guy not that interested in the thickness of Porsche turret top armour, there are five more whose thirst for accurcy demands it is in there, and accurate to a nanometre.

And here is where I believe your line of reasoning is incomplete or flawed:
The game has the data on the range of rifle grenades and the top armor of the 79 porsche turret Tiger 2s (actually I don't know you have that data, but you get the general idea: there is a huge amount of data for each element in the game).

And even with all of this data, a Security division of 1200 guys can retreat successfully over and over from 3 panzer divisions doing deliberate attacks, and brigades of 16 T-70s with 1000 guys can harass the entire Das Reich motorized infantry regiment.

So you can say that these data are necessary to the overall realism in the game, but you're looking right past the lack of realism in the game. This to me undermines your argument.

Moreover:
While the game has all these data, we still inherit a game where the supply model is, by comparison, infantile relative to the combat element model. The supply model needed more detail (for me) in order to represent what I consider "operational warfare". The combat model has so much information that you can watch it produce dumb results. I assert much of the dumb results in the combat engine are the result of unnecessary data going into it.

Finally:
Strategically, only the Soviet has options. The German is tied to the decisions of history, at least in terms of his OOB, where the Soviet has literally infinitely more flexibility in how he assembles his force.

Conclusion:
I look at this game through the perspective of a game consumer, not a historian. There are some game design decisions here that bother me enough that I might not want to be a Matrix game consumer, you're right (hopefully not, though, this has been an enjoyable, although occasionally disheartening and often frustrating). I do think I have valuable input on what makes a game compelling to play.

I think WitE has been designed without equal emphasis on what's fun to play for each side: I assert that the 1942 trench warfare situation (which is being managed with great promise from what I observe of 1.05, I grant you) is an example of not emphasizing what is fun to play (and, by the way, a-historical to what actually happened in 1942 by a huge degree).

I would not be as ardent a critic if these were the first 90 days of release. We're in month 10. I also understand business, and the fact that this IS a super-niche market that has much smaller resources available. But I paid $80 for this game, so there's your niche mark-up. That's $20 more than the high price-point games in stores today, or 33%.

It is entirely possible that Matrix is more oriented to the hard-core historian than the veteran wargamer. That's an easy way to argue away my criticisms, though.

Anyway, respect to the Matrix team for creating such a stable product (this often goes under-appreciated!) and supporting it as well as the best companies in the industry so far (I'm alluding to Blizzard here). That aspect of continued support makes up for almost everything.

[marty_01]

While the game has all these data, we still inherit a game where the supply model is, by comparison, infantile relative to the combat element model. The supply model needed more detail (for me) in order to represent what I consider "operational warfare". The combat model has so much information that you can watch it produce dumb results. I assert much of the dumb results in the combat engine are the result of unnecessary data going into it.

What kind of additional detail would you say the supply rules need?

[gradenko2k]

I'm not 100% on this, but I believe it has to do with how plentiful supply is, and what supply actually means in terms of combat.

For the former, the Soviets can, for example, attack all along the front during the First Winter, when in reality their logistics were nowhere near mature enough to allow that. This is also more-or-less exacerbated by the 2:1 rule giving the Soviets good odds at succeeding at such front-wide attacks. With the impending removal of the 2:1 rule, the Soviets will need to concentrate a lot more force in order to make attacks that actually result in German retreats. The supply mechanics will still allow them to attack wherever they please, but the opportunities will be far less.

For the latter, I believe it has to do with a unit that's "in supply" being able to fight really well in a relative sense, as in you don't really feel the effects of running low on ammo up until you drain a unit dry.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I'm not 100% on this, but I believe it has to do with how plentiful supply is, and what supply actually means in terms of combat.

For the former, the Soviets can, for example, attack all along the front during the First Winter, when in reality their logistics were nowhere near mature enough to allow that. This is also more-or-less exacerbated by the 2:1 rule giving the Soviets good odds at succeeding at such front-wide attacks. With the impending removal of the 2:1 rule, the Soviets will need to concentrate a lot more force in order to make attacks that actually result in German retreats. The supply mechanics will still allow them to attack wherever they please, but the opportunities will be far less.

For the latter, I believe it has to do with a unit that's "in supply" being able to fight really well in a relative sense, as in you don't really feel the effects of running low on ammo up until you drain a unit dry.

Except that the Soviets did attack across the whole front that first winter. And, you know what? They did the same thing the second winter. And again after Kursk.

Only in 1944 did they forego a broad front offensive and switch to staggered offensives. Somehow, logistics didn't keep them from doing lunges across the whole front otherwise. Mind you, said lunges weren't always a success, but they tried anyways.

If anybody had the rickety logistics which the game is far too forgiving of, it is the Germans, not the Soviets. I'm looking at you, Mr. HQ Buildup Rule.

[marty_01]

Except that the Soviets did attack across the whole front that first winter. And, you know what? They did the same thing the second winter. And again after Kursk.

Highly debatable. He was referring to simultaneity in offensive action across the map -- Ladoga to Azov. I've rutinely done simultaneous across the map offensives as the Russians come that 1st year blizzard. And I've been pretty successful at chewing up German formation across the map during the 1st blizzard. Russian Supply shortages have never been an issue for me. Good fun -- but realistic portrayal of Soviet logistics?

Regarding the shot at HQ build up -- I use it very effectively during the first winter - as the Russians. Realistic -- probably not. But it gives my tank brigades and cavalry corps nice boost in MPs and allows them to stretch their legs a bit. I enjoy pocketing German units via my little HQ build ups.

Axis use of HQ buildup --- hmmm --- sort of a play balance thing at this point. Sorta like the 1:1 2:1 thingy. Both of these thingies and their relative need within the game are seemingly the result of balance issues or other short comings in either the combat model or logistics model. And the need to implement artificial balancing rules and/or things like HQ buildup into a game suggest something isn't right within the model. So if HQ buildup and the 1:1/2:1 thingy are "realism" busts, what is it within the game engine that needs tweaked such that HQ buildup and the 1:1 thingy are required?



Out of curiosity who is that on your Avatar?

[PeeDeeAitch]

In my opinion, both sides can attack (and more importantly coordinate attacks) all along the front for too long. Rules such as the 1:1 or HQ buildup certainly add to this problem, and they allow situations that really perhaps shouldn't happen to happen.

That said, I do not want the game to devolve into a "Rails in the East" game or "Trucks and Horses: Logistic Gaming in the Great Patriotic War." Rather, there needs to be both a long look at the why certain factors are in the game, and perhaps their effect and when (if) they might need to go. I do not want the end result to take away from the enjoyment of the game.

[IronDuke_slith]

As for the chrome, just check the forums for this and WITP. It's the attention to detail that completes GG games for many people. For every Guy not that interested in the thickness of Porsche turret top armour, there are five more whose thirst for accurcy demands it is in there, and accurate to a nanometre.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
And here is where I believe your line of reasoning is incomplete or flawed:
The game has the data on the range of rifle grenades and the top armor of the 79 porsche turret Tiger 2s (actually I don't know you have that data, but you get the general idea: there is a huge amount of data for each element in the game).

And even with all of this data, a Security division of 1200 guys can retreat successfully over and over from 3 panzer divisions doing deliberate attacks, and brigades of 16 T-70s with 1000 guys can harass the entire Das Reich motorized infantry regiment.

Well, I haven't seen this sort of issue, but most games create anomalies at the outlier.

In TOAW I, A man with a thousand recoiless rifle armed jeeps could defeat a Tiger Battalion. Norm's response was a new engine that went for just as much detail as WitE has. The detail helps produce more accurate combat results by measuring not overall strength but individual weapons effectiveness.

So you can say that these data are necessary to the overall realism in the game, but you're looking right past the lack of realism in the game. This to me undermines your argument.

The only realism I want is in the interaction of air, artillery, Tanks, infantry and terrain. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The fact a security division retreated repeatedly rather than being crushed or something is hardly evidence the combat model is fundamentally broke. Show me an exhausted infantry division shorn of it's heavy weapons standing it's ground in the face of Panzer Guppe 2 and maybe we have something to talk about.

Moreover:
While the game has all these data, we still inherit a game where the supply model is, by comparison, infantile relative to the combat element model. The supply model needed more detail (for me) in order to represent what I consider "operational warfare". The combat model has so much information that you can watch it produce dumb results. I assert much of the dumb results in the combat engine are the result of unnecessary data going into it.

Well, logistics is a complicated topic and subject to any number of influencing factors. The current model at least has the temeritry to be manageable. What more detail would you have wanted?

I don't agree re the combat engine. As above, TOAW I was fundamentally re-written to add more detail not less, because of dumb results at the outlier.

Finally:
Strategically, only the Soviet has options. The German is tied to the decisions of history, at least in terms of his OOB, where the Soviet has literally infinitely more flexibility in how he assembles his force.

What other options do you think the Germans reasonably had? The ability to combine support units, and mix and match units within Corps seems to me to give the German player everything he might have been able to do. What is it you feel is lacking?

Conclusion:
I look at this game through the perspective of a game consumer, not a historian. There are some game design decisions here that bother me enough that I might not want to be a Matrix game consumer, you're right (hopefully not, though, this has been an enjoyable, although occasionally disheartening and often frustrating). I do think I have valuable input on what makes a game compelling to play.

I think WitE has been designed without equal emphasis on what's fun to play for each side: I assert that the 1942 trench warfare situation (which is being managed with great promise from what I observe of 1.05, I grant you) is an example of not emphasizing what is fun to play (and, by the way, a-historical to what actually happened in 1942 by a huge degree).

I'd need to understand what you wanted the Germans to be able to do that was "fun" before replying to this one. In the past, it's been a production free for all or give the Allies the keys to Berlin and throw eveything into the east sort of thing.

I would not be as ardent a critic if these were the first 90 days of release. We're in month 10. I also understand business, and the fact that this IS a super-niche market that has much smaller resources available. But I paid $80 for this game, so there's your niche mark-up. That's $20 more than the high price-point games in stores today, or 33%.

I just think this has been an immensley complicated thing to balance, primarily because the Soviets made huge errors in real life, or fought under huge handicaps that the game can not fully replicate. In addition, it is difficult for the game to replicate the effects of doctrine when everyone wants to use their own style and plans. Trying to get historical results when everyone is behaving ahistorically is a real challenge.

It is entirely possible that Matrix is more oriented to the hard-core historian than the veteran wargamer. That's an easy way to argue away my criticisms, though.

These two sorts of people are not mutually exclusive, and are more the norm here than the exception.

Regards,
ID

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

Except that the Soviets did attack across the whole front that first winter. And, you know what? They did the same thing the second winter. And again after Kursk.

Highly debatable. He was referring to simultaneity in offensive action across the map -- Ladoga to Azov. I've rutinely done simultaneous across the map offensives as the Russians come that 1st year blizzard. And I've been pretty successful at chewing up German formation across the map during the 1st blizzard. Russian Supply shortages have never been an issue for me. Good fun -- but realistic portrayal of Soviet logistics?

Realistic in the sense that you can do it, but yet another different thing is considering that it yields realistic results. Playing against Axis opponents I have found the need to shut down operations so I can focus refit and channel replacements. Even more important are railheads... the typical thing for a Soviet offensive is that it peters out because of outrunning supply network reach or because very focused German counterattacks crushing the leading units.

Problem with 1:1 -> 2:1 - and other stuff - was that it allowed to cause unreasonable amounts of attrition due to retreats, therefore rewarding a very strange art of operational warfare. It was a bit sad - for me - that playing the game in a realistic way (planning and executing breakthrough and exploitation battles) wasn't the most sensible thing to do for the Soviets

ORIGINAL: marty_01
Regarding the shot at HQ build up -- I use it very effectively during the first winter - as the Russians. Realistic -- probably not. But it gives my tank brigades and cavalry corps nice boost in MPs and allows them to stretch their legs a bit. I enjoy pocketing German units via my little HQ build ups.

That's interesting. However I wonder if you won't run into problems in Spring 1942, when you're supposed to reform Soviet motorized forces. Have you found any problem with that?

ORIGINAL: marty_01
Axis use of HQ buildup --- hmmm --- sort of a play balance thing at this point. Sorta like the 1:1 2:1 thingy. Both of these thingies and their relative need within the game are seemingly the result of balance issues or other short comings in either the combat model or logistics model. And the need to implement artificial balancing rules and/or things like HQ buildup into a game suggest something isn't right within the model. So if HQ buildup and the 1:1/2:1 thingy are "realism" busts, what is it within the game engine that needs tweaked such that HQ buildup and the 1:1 thingy are required?

I don't agree with regarding HQ build up as a "game balance" mechanic at all. Very much like 1:1-2:1 wasn't either. The latter was a debatable modeling of Soviet very offensive doctrines. And the former I think is a basic tenet for any game that tries to portray operational warfare at this scale right. If anything, doing HQ buildup before any major push should be a *must* not an *option*.

If there's a problem with Axis logistics being too easy the place to look at is RR repair and vehicle availability.

ORIGINAL: marty_01
Out of curiosity who is that on your Avatar?

K. K. Rokossovsky one of the best commanders on the Red Army payroll during the war.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
...it is difficult for the game to replicate the effects of doctrine when everyone wants to use their own style and plans. Trying to get historical results when everyone is behaving ahistorically is a real challenge.

Indeed!

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I don't agree with regarding HQ build up as a "game balance" mechanic at all....<snip>...I think is a basic tenet for any game that tries to portray operational warfare at this scale right. If anything, doing HQ buildup before any major push should be a *must* not an *option*.

If there's a problem with Axis logistics being too easy the place to look at is RR repair and vehicle availability.

Another good quote (my bolding) for the night. Agreed 100%.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I don't agree with regarding HQ build up as a "game balance" mechanic at all....<snip>...I think is a basic tenet for any game that tries to portray operational warfare at this scale right. If anything, doing HQ buildup before any major push should be a *must* not an *option*.

If there's a problem with Axis logistics being too easy the place to look at is RR repair and vehicle availability.

Another good quote (my bolding) for the night. Agreed 100%.

+1 We have to make offensive planification/preparation mandatory

[parusski]

"From the Wiki on GG:

Kampfgruppe (1985):
Might have played this, but I'd have been 16. Who can remember."

I bought Kampfgruppe right after it was available. At this moment I am looking through the manual, an interesting 23 pages. It has a blue cover with lot's and lot's of Panther tanks on the it. The manual is a nice reference tool also.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I see your point, but there is one contradiction or paradox. Forcing the Allies (or any side) to do more historical stuff inevitably means that the games get more predictable, not less, surely?

If the Soviets in WitE get to withdraw to a line along the Kursk and Smolensk axis in 1941 rather than defend forward, the AXIS don't have to go for the oil, defend forward in the Ukraine so they are exhausted before they can fortify the Dniepr etc in 1942/43.

For me, give the sides what they had, introduce rules which reflect the differening capabilities and doctrines (doctrine tends to be the thing that gets missed) and let people get on with it.

If a player is wanting a 'historical' experience then he will have to accept some level of restrictions that would force him to make similar choices and/or fight in a way at least similar to those of the RL commanders. To use the east as an example, to use a Russian version of "Sir Robin" in WitE won't truely create for the player a valid historical experience (or comparison....however superficial as we all do like to be armchair generals and thus "see how'd we do" vs. the RL commanders.)

I'm not suggesting that the player be hogtied, otherwise as many have mentioned.....why not just watch a history tape? But the more control a player is given the more thought must go into balancing the game mechanics so as to minimize exploits and loopholes.

I'd agree that Allied air and naval power in 1944 means this segment of the game will likely only ever play one way. The only interest in this game is when it is linked to WitE because at that point, you might conceivably be able to shift other assets into theatre (with the likely result you might hols the allies up for another week[;)])

I'm not sure this is an answer. As long as the detail can be micro managed by friendly AI, I don't see it does any harm.

WitP AE introduced much more detail level vs. the standard WitP. This in some cases led to decreased playability, complicated the combat routines and in more than one arena, heavily increased player management duties. While not totally specific to the player's complaint, as a Developer I see a trend towards focusing on the tree and then the tree branches vs. the Forest producing problems that either were not as prevalient or at least as overbearing as in past incarnations of the game. Not to say that there wern't issues with older games. I well recall the famous Air transport/empty Panzer corps trick in WiR. [:D]. Players always find a way. The more detail and micromanagement a game has....the more the tendancy for players to find a way!

This worked in some TOAW scenarios, but it won't create more variation as the initial complaint seemed to be aimed at. Forcing the Russians in Russia and the Germans in France to fight forward will produce just as stereotypical a game as the current hindsight driven strategies produce.

Depending on the level of lock down/rules.....yes. Best way to represent this would be multiple scenario versions/options that can satisfy players who want total free control of their units. (A combination CiC and Government leader) and those who want be the general who has his own set of "orders" that define and restrict his command options.

3) maybe a more dynamic AI in which your not just either one side or the other....but have the option to have the AI control one nation......say the UK Expeditionary Force while you control France.....or vice versa. Imagine your consternation if your best laid plan is laid waste by a sudden withdrawl by your "ally" (as historically happened at one point in 1940)

Wouldn't work for PBEM. I wouldn't want to lose my half of a mirrored PBEM because I rolled a three and he rolled a six. Also, as a Brit, we didn't lay anyone's best laid plans to waste....[;)] With the front fractured, Germans in our rear, we got across the channel in order to fight another day. This wouldn't be a "sudden withdrawal" event, but a "Your Allies did the only sensible thing left for them to do" event....[;)]

Respect and regards,
ID

I did a duh...moment here till i realized how the above could be "read". lol. No.....didn't mean to suggest that the UK ran out on the French. (actually, without googling or pulling a book out, think it was the other way around) I was just trying to use a loose example of how such a feature would work in regards to representing true "Coalition" warfare. This lack of proper representation is a major issue in WitP/AE. Historically the ABDA command was a fractured mess with not only different goals and priorities but different languages doctrine and procedures. In the game though, a single player controls all the "Allied" forces and they immediately fight better as a unified whole. There are not even any penalties in place for multi national TF's created.

I don't think this "option" is unworkable. I can see why some players (who like that total control) would not want to play in that way. Thus put it in as an option. Ultimately its no different than having multiple players on each side in a PBEM where one does one nationality or region, another does another grouping etc etc.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

In my opinion, both sides can attack (and more importantly coordinate attacks) all along the front for too long. Rules such as the 1:1 or HQ buildup certainly add to this problem, and they allow situations that really perhaps shouldn't happen to happen.

That said, I do not want the game to devolve into a "Rails in the East" game or "Trucks and Horses: Logistic Gaming in the Great Patriotic War." Rather, there needs to be both a long look at the why certain factors are in the game, and perhaps their effect and when (if) they might need to go. I do not want the end result to take away from the enjoyment of the game.

Way back when, Dunnigan ran an S&T poll month after month to see how many people were interested in an East Front game that primarily focused on logistics. I kept voting for it but apparently I was about the only one since he produced a game on just about any imaginable subject but never that one.

[Zorch]

Richard Berg's North Africa game (for SPI) was the ultimate in bean counting...it wasn't too well received, if memory serves.

[carlkay58]

Campaign for North Africa would be much different and better received today if it was computerized. In fact, there is only a bit more detail required than WiTE does, simply because of the much smaller quantity of units. A friend of mine and I actually played the entire campaign of CNA - and got a tie! The victory conditions mentioned that this proved that the entire time investment meant that it was a complete waste of time. Still had fun for almost three years of gaming though.

[Captain]

I still had or have many of these monster board games, SPI's War in the East, War in the West, War in the Pacific. (unfortunately, Wite and Witw were destroyed in a flood decades ago).

However, all these games were unplayable as board games. I once belonged to a club and we played SPI's "Gettysburg" over a long weekend with opposing teams. We covered July 1st over two days, at the end of which the CSA had conquered most of the map. The game then broke up over a rules squabble.

It is only with computers that these type of games are now playable.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Captain

I still had or have many of these monster board games, SPI's War in the East, War in the West, War in the Pacific. (unfortunately, Wite and Witw were destroyed in a flood decades ago).

However, all these games were unplayable as board games. I once belonged to a club and we played SPI's "Gettysburg" over a long weekend with opposing teams. We covered July 1st over two days, at the end of which the CSA had conquered most of the map. The game then broke up over a rules squabble.

It is only with computers that these type of games are now playable.

What about the OCS series of games? The logistics model in those games put any computer wargame to shame. The sad part is that it is a fairly mechanical process and something a computer could emulate fairly easily. But instead of having physical stockpiles of supplies needed before an offensive being launched there is an HQ buildup option in WITE. Personally, I think the OCS model is more accurate in terms of realism and modelling deep operations.

[Michael T]

What about the OCS series of games? The logistics model in those games put any computer wargame to shame. The sad part is that it is a fairly mechanical process and something a computer could emulate fairly easily. But instead of having physical stockpiles of supplies needed before an offensive being launched there is an HQ buildup option in WITE. Personally, I think the OCS model is more accurate in terms of realism and modelling deep operations.

+1

I love those games.