Community Project

[Karri]

Yeah. We need one for sure. I am positive of this.

So what I am proposing that we choose a scenario we want build, and then make the appropriate research and build the scenario. Together!


I had something in mind...FitE that starts in 1942
But suggest something.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

How about a scenario where NATO and other nations invade China after the Chinese failed in their invasion of Taiwan, and/or after the Chinese crashed the stock markets all over the world by financial means (or something along those lines)?
 
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

How about a scenario where NATO and other nations invade China after the Chinese failed in their invasion of Taiwan, and/or after the Chinese crashed the stock markets all over the world by financial means (or something along those lines)?

As hinted at by your second statement, a war between the west and China would be primarily an economic/political conflict (assuming there is no nuclear release). Deploying a force large enough to challenge the PLA on its own terms would be impossible for any combination of western nations, whilst China has only very limited power projection capabilities. The military standoff would end with either a negotiated settlement or internal collapse in China. I suppose one could make a scenario covering some minor action on the Chinese periphery, but the objectives would be a bit obscure.

As to the prospects for a group design project- maybe. You will have to hash out conceptual issues from the outset otherwise there will be big problems. Take for example mapping. What constitutes a "river"? You'll have to define it pretty clearly in advance if more than one person is going to work on the map, otherwise one area will look like the Nile Delta while next door is the Kalahari. There are countless other such considerations.

I think the best way to make this work would be to break it down in to the various tasks;
Mapping
TO&E
OOB
Deployment
Events
PO

This would prevent too much overlap between any two peoples' responsibilities, although these issues do impact on one another nonetheless.

[Karri]

Mapping is indeed a hard task, even more so depending on the size of the scenario, but the other ones can 'overlap' pretty freely, as long as certain conditions are met. For example I figure the hardest task about OOB is to actually find out what the historical/fictional OOB will look like.

How about a future China-India conflict, or China-Russia conflict?

Throw out some ideas let's vote on them on what to do then...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Mapping is indeed a hard task, even more so depending on the size of the scenario, but the other ones can 'overlap' pretty freely, as long as certain conditions are met. For example I figure the hardest task about OOB is to actually find out what the historical/fictional OOB will look like.

But it's important that the OOB be consistent. For example a lot of scenarios throw the artillery in with the HQ. Your OOB would look a bit odd if this were done in for some divisions but not for others. At a more basic level, there needs to be a consensus on unit scales. Are you going to be using a modified database? What proficiency ratings are appropriate, etc. Other stuff will come up which no-one will have thought of.

How about a future China-India conflict, or China-Russia conflict?

I dunno. Besides the problems I listed above (which would apply to these examples as well to some extent), China is notoriously difficult to research. Besides the language barrier, they aren't exactly famous for their openness.

Anyway, for my part, I recall something like this was suggested for a hypothetical in which Germany concludes a separate peace with the Western Allies in 1944 or 1945, possibly after a successful July plot. Russia just keep rolling; a wavering German army has to hold on until the Allies can work up the political steam to intervene. The Waffen SS will fight everyone (shame TOAW won't let you have more than 2 forces).

I believe the original idea was a suite of related but separate operational scale scenarios, which would be easier to produce, but it could be done as one large scenario.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
But it's important that the OOB be consistent. For example a lot of scenarios throw the artillery in with the HQ. Your OOB would look a bit odd if this were done in for some divisions but not for others. At a more basic level, there needs to be a consensus on unit scales. Are you going to be using a modified database? What proficiency ratings are appropriate, etc. Other stuff will come up which no-one will have thought of.

I mean doing the research, not doing the OOB in the game. All these things are a matter of discussion and getting into an agreement what the OOB should look like.

I dunno. Besides the problems I listed above (which would apply to these examples as well to some extent), China is notoriously difficult to research. Besides the language barrier, they aren't exactly famous for their openness.

True again, I guess historical scenario would be the easiest one to do in that regard.

Anyway, for my part, I recall something like this was suggested for a hypothetical in which Germany concludes a separate peace with the Western Allies in 1944 or 1945, possibly after a successful July plot. Russia just keep rolling; a wavering German army has to hold on until the Allies can work up the political steam to intervene. The Waffen SS will fight everyone (shame TOAW won't let you have more than 2 forces).

I believe the original idea was a suite of related but separate operational scale scenarios, which would be easier to produce, but it could be done as one large scenario.

Sounds interesting, however what scale?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Karri

I mean doing the research, not doing the OOB in the game.

Yeah, that would work better.

Sounds interesting, however what scale?

To be honest, I think there are enough lets-see-how-many-units-we-can-fit-in scenarios as it is. Due to the size of the forces involved, I would be inclined to do this at divisional scale, perhaps 10km/hex. This will still leave you with a thousand peices a side or something like it.

[ColinWright]

There's a certain party who must not be named who used to orchestrate undertakings like this.

Of course, the relationship between him and his 'co-workers' was less than egalitarian.

[vahauser]

Funny you should mention this concept of a "community project".  I myself have been thinking about a 'Alternate Universe' hypothetical war that takes place June 1941-December 1944 between two mythical countries I've named Teutonia and Steppeland.
 
I've already established the game scale as 25km/hex and 1/2-week turns.
 
The intent of my game is:
1) Create a equipment database that is independent of the current .eqp, which allows me to rate units however I want.  Instead of being a liability, this is a definite advantage.  For instance, I can model the TAF SE-Ftr-1940 (Teutonia Air Force SingleEngine Fighter 1940) on the Me-109E, but I don't have to worry about historical purists pestering me about whether I got the range right or that the air defense value seems too low, etc.  Or I can model the SGF MBT-1941 (Steppeland Ground Forces MediumBattleTank 1941) on the T-34/41 and not have to worry if I don't satisfy the historical purists regarding the AT and armor values, etc.
2) Make a map that I don't have to do 10,000 hours of research on.  For instance, I know that the historical 1941 invasion frontage was roughly 70 hexes total (with 30 hexes not used initially, in Romania and Hungary) on a north-south axis of 40 hexes.  And I know that this map increased to roughly 80 hexes (north-south) with a battle frontage of around 160 hexes. [All of this not counting the far north and the far south.]
3) Most Importantly.  I am not bound by historical OOBs.  This means that I can mostly eliminate ant units (by sticking exclusively to XX and X, (and the occasional * * (i.e., section) size) units, as well as constructing formations that consist of 32 units).  And this also allows me greater flexibility regarding replacements, events, PO objectives, etc.
 
Anyway, I'm convinced that trying to create something along the lines of C.O.R.E. (for Hearts of Iron 2) is not practical due mainly to historical disagreements.  By eliminating historical disagreements by creating an 'Alternate Universe', I can control exactly the kind of combat environment I want.  An environment that accentuates the best features of TOAW III while minimizing its worst features (like ants).
 
In any event, I'm only interested in WW2 and would not participate in any non-WW2-based community project.

[Karri]

I've been thinking of that aswell, creating a big scneario where both sides essentially have the same units, both thus having an equal chance of winning.

I guess we'll go for a WW2 project?

[vahauser]

Karri,

The way I would do this is:

Step 1 = Create a community project thread that contains the basic parameters of the project, such as:  WW2, large scale, hypothetical, etc. (for example).

Step 2 = Create a detailed project proposal outlining all aspects of the project that need to be accomplished.  This need not be performed by a single person and could also be a way of creating a cadre of community volunteers (although an initial proposal could be created and used as a starting point).  Indeed, in the beginning several detailed project proposals could be created independently by a variety of people which are then “merged” (or synthesized) into a single project.

Step 3 = Determine a project facilitator who will coordinate the efforts of the group.  This person would need to be totally committed to the project (he would also have to be in complete agreement with the project outline), as well as somebody whom the group could trust to delegate and effectively manage the project through to completion.

Step 4 = Individuals are allocated a portion of the project to work on.  Hopefully enough individuals are involved in the project so that every participant will have a portion that is compatible with his time, skill, and availability.  Ideally, enough participants are available to be able to have alternates for every portion of the project.

Step 5 = Complete the project.

Based on what I’ve observed in this forum, I personally believe that there exists enough skill and talent to accomplish a community TOAW III project.  The challenge is to actually do it.
 

[a white rabbit]

..i'll do the map, but not for Russia 1941, good Europe maps already exist, and i'm still involved with equatorial rain-forest, so new scenery please, an Antartic-riches war between China, the US/ Europe and South America ? i've  got some beauty  (real) maps of the Antartic, and it'l get me thinking circular again..

[DuckofTindalos]

Perhaps scenarios based on Larry Bond's novels Cauldron and/or Vortex. Not Red Phoenix; there are enough Korea scenarios.

[vahauser]

Karri,
 
And perhaps we are seeing in this thread right now why there has never been a TOAW community project.  We can't even achieve a consensus on a time period, much less a theater and scale.

[Karri]

Well, I guess WW2 is ok with everyone...?
Apparently a fictional scenario then, or a what-if. I think 10km/week or half week is the best scale. I don't like the bigger scales since then you can't have artillery behind your lines...

[vahauser]

Karri,
 
And I don't like the smaller scales for precisely that reason. 
 
Also, I am convinced that the Allowed Equipment Densities are more flawed at the smaller scales. 
 
Also, I prefer a smaller time scale (compared with the hex size) since it breaks the game into smaller time granules, and that increased granularity allows for more interesting event (as well as player reactions during play) possibilities.
 
But I definitely prefer WW2 and I definitely prefer hypothetical.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
But I definitely prefer WW2 and I definitely prefer hypothetical.

Believe that it was Churchill that proposed attacking Germany through Greece and the Balkans. You might try that as your hypothetical scenario. Or, you might set up the situation as in late 43 and use the free deployment idea to let the players pick their own place to invade fortress Europe.

Regards, RhinoBones

[vahauser]

rhinobones,
 
I'm thinking something way more hypothetical than that.  For example, 20 July 1944.  Hitler is assassinated.  The German nation fractures.  The Soviet spies at Los Alamos are discovered.  The Allies and Soviets face off for the domination of Europe with Germany torn apart by civil war in the middle. . .

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

rhinobones,

I'm thinking something way more hypothetical than that. For example, 20 July 1944. Hitler is assassinated. The German nation fractures. The Soviet spies at Los Alamos are discovered. The Allies and Soviets face off for the domination of Europe with Germany torn apart by civil war in the middle. . .

Sounds good to me. Though germany torn by civil war, I'd rather just move the SS formations to Soviet control(can't operate together with Soviets, but it's not like there's any other way)...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

rhinobones,

The Soviet spies at Los Alamos are discovered. . .

This is actually a good example of how general strategic needs will certainly overshadow any such 'discovery.'

We had discovered the Soviets surreptitiously taking secret documents. Literally planeloads of them, in fact. However, we found it inconvenient to make an issue out of it at the time.

In 1944, we needed it to be kindly Uncle Joe and 'our brave Soviet ally.' If the truth was otherwise, the truth simply had to be ignored.