Matrix Games Forums

From what I gather from the press release, you say one of the problems facing gamers is...

A fundamental problem in wargame design is the iron grip of hindsight. The player knows, or can easily find out, what happened in the course of the historical battle that we are trying to recreate. Hindsight allows him to perform many actions that his historical counterpart could never do. Quiet sectors of the front can be completely stripped of men, leaving large sectors guarded only by historical knowledge. Orders from Hitler or Stalin, historically disregarded at extreme peril, can be safely ignored.

and your answer to this is Areas of Operation

To illustrate, let’s consider the Russian 21st and 23rd Tank Corps, which are part of the Russian 6th Army and which start the game in reserve behind the front lines south of Kharkov. Their task was to exploit holes in the Axis defences created by the 6th Army’s infantry formations and form the southern pincer of the drive on Kharkov. With no AO restrictions, you can undertake a number of ahistorical and unmilitary operations with them.

Firstly, you could throw them immediately into the breakthrough battle, even though the Russian orders were to wait for the infantry to create the breakthrough. Secondly, and even more drastically, you could dash off a short (and surely suicidal) note to Stalin informing him that his cherished summer offensive was cancelled because you ‘knew’ that the Axis would be up to something bad on the southern front five days from now and you were moving all his precious Tank Brigades south to meet the looming threat (that only you knew about).

The AO restrictions prevent both of these undesirable eventualities, but naturally these AO restrictions work both ways. Just as the Russian player can’t strip his front lines to pile units in the way of the Axis, the Axis are prevented from doing the same to block the Russian thrusts on Kharkov. Instead, both players must solve the problems they face with the forces that they have to hand as best they can, just like their historical counterparts, while still retaining militarily sensible defences in other sectors of the front.

Naturally, the AOs change with circumstances and time. In our example, the Tank Brigades will have a much expanded AO the turn after the infantry formations capture two designated objectives, or on Turn 5 regardless of the infantry’s progress. So if your infantry does well you are rewarded by the early release of the Tank Brigades but if they are blocked then the tanks will eventually show up to try and force the issue.

In general, AO restrictions are eased over time. Also, reserve formations, especially those off map at the start of the battle, or alert formations released if the enemy captures important objectives, will have wide AOs so that they can perform their historical role as fire brigades, plugging gaps or countering breakthroughs.

Seems to me, this doesn't facilitate the gamer at all.

If I could elaborate.

If there is a wide front line, and there is a quiet sector, seems to me it makes sense, as the commander, that I may want to send my reserves over there. In fact, one thing in gaming I like (when it works) is being able to exploit and flank.

Likewise, the enemy should be able to notice this movement (sudden thrust), realise lines have been weakened and make a choice...bolster the defence where the thrust is and where to take those defenses from, or identify where those troops came from, and make a flanking thrust of your own.

Now, from a historical point of view, I can see why the AoO makes sense. From an AI point of view, I can understand why the developer wants it in...but from a gaming perspective, just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean, surely, that it can't happen.

I'm afraid, unless I'm reading it wrong, that this seems very restrictive from a gaming perspective. Seems to me what I will have here is an historical slugfest with too little room to manouvre and very little (not enough) freedom of movement on the battlefield.

Sorry, but it seems to me, you've created a term (Area of Operations), bundled it under historical accuracy and removal of hindsight in order to reduce your requirement to produce a reactive AI and therefore made the game restrictive for a gaming perspective.

Sure, as a military simulation of that battle, being restricted to those Areas of Operations sounds marvelous. But I don't want to necessarily fight that battle that way. If I have a couple of tank reserves and I know the Axis forces have left their right flank weak, then I want to exploit that with my reserves. Or move troops from the Northern Sector and leave it thinly held with a thin reserve and move them south to engage the enemy.

If I have this wrong, then please inform me...but I read the press release here and that's what I read.

Well, I've also read the bit on Mystery Variants which alleviate the issue somewhat...but to what level? I'm not sure 10 Mystery Variants will be enough to eliminate the rigid use of forces introduced by the AoO.

I'm not certain this is 100% correct, but consider this.
 
In any battle, the commanders must have a plan.  Why?  Because things like roads, supplies, troop concentrations and other organizational things must be worked out to get things where they need to be at a given time.  Once you have a plan, then the combat commanders will have to adhere to it until the overall commanders come up with a modified plan.
 
So, what is being modelled is the existence of a plan for the battle (apparently with some reserve formations that have a more or less free AO).  This part is realistic to me.
 
What may not be modelled -- I just don't know, but I suspect not so much -- is the player's ability to modify the plan based on new intelligence.  Whether such a thing just isn't within the scope of this particular game, or whether the relaxation of AOs over time accounts for it, only experience or SSG can tell.  All I can say is that it doesn't appear unrealistic for there to be a set plan for the battle which constrains the movement of troops -- at least for a period of time.
 
It's also apparent that the player can't truly create a plan from whole cloth.  He's limited to the given variants.  This is good for alot of players who don't want a lot of prep time before they play, and just want it all set up for them.  Also, the AOs are optional and you can turn them off and play just as with all prior SSG games.
 
It's an interesting and novel concept to me, as it will place the player in the additional roll of field commander(s) following the orders for the battle.  Absolute freedom is not something that is common in military operations, and even the overall commander cannot immediately undo certain things that have been preordained by his own orders.

A key thing to also be aware of is that the AOs can be turned entirely off. Here are a few posts Gregor made in the Newsgroups responding to a similar question:

"I appreciate the questions about the Areas of Operations. It's always
hard to grasp what new features are all about, so I wrote an article
introducing them. You can find it here
tm.asp?m=1792278 and it will be on
the SSG site soon as well.


However, I would like to address questions that have been raised here
as well.


Short Reply to Questions Raised
There are no Rommels, or even Pattons, in the Red Army.
Patton's move to Bastogne was regarded as the wonder of its military
age, and was never repeated. It was made possible because on Patton's
original front he was facing weak opposition that could barely move
and was a negligible offensive threat.
Rommel exploited a first class French road network and I seem to
recall refuelled his Panzers from civilian gas stations, both
conspicuously absent from the backblocks of Russia.
Areas of Operations are entirely optional.


Long Reply to Questions Raised
The Areas of Operations concept seeks to solve some long standing game
issues which can be summarised as hindsight, and the ability to act on
hindsight. Hindsight, or even just playing the game once, reveals that
the Soviet southern front is weakly defended and will be hit by a
German juggernaut. Why then would the Russian player use his southern
forces to attack west towards Krasnograd or northwest towards Kharkov?
Why wouldn't he strip most of the attacking forces from his northern
pincer and turn Disaster on the Donets into Stalemate at Izyum?


The answer is that he couldn't. Even if a friendly wargamer
time-machined back to warn him, he couldn't defy Stalin and the
Stavka's orders. Even if he was Stalin, he couldn't move all those men
over a non existent road network to a brand new location and he
certainly couldn't move the vast mountains of supplies that been
laboriously concentrated in their original locations.


So Areas of Operations are intended to bring about more historical
outcomes in battles, by posing more realistic challenges to players.
The Soviet player can't unrealistically and ahistorically reinforce
his southern front, because the formations that he would use to do
that simply aren't allowed to move there. Similarly, the German player
can't strip his lines of defenders and pile them up in front of
Kharkov because he knows where the main Russian blow must fall. That's
fair to both sides.


However, the German player, he does have certain advantages. For
example the 294th Infantry Division belongs to XVII Korps and is
initially restricted to defending the area around Kharkov. However,
the 23rd and 3rd Panzer Divisions belong to 6th Army and they can
range over most of the battlefield right from the start, acting as a
much needed fire brigade. Only Front level Soviet reserves are given
similar latitude but this makes them perform their historically
valuable role. Without Areas of Operations, the idea of reserve
formations is lost and the player can use them casually when
historically the commitment of reserve formations was a crucial
decision.


Areas of Operations are typically broadened over time but can also be
triggered by objectives. The Soviets can release their Tank Corps
early if they take certain objectives and restrictions on their
southern formations are relaxed when the German offensive in the south
makes sufficient progress.


As well as bringing realism, Areas of Operations also bring a measure
of certainty. Instead of a conceptually blank canvas, you are given a
plan, broad outlines that you work within to achieve victory.


The Mystery Variants prevent gaming the system. You can't be certain
what Areas of Operations your opponent has, so there's no point in
trying to line up on the edges of those areas. You might over-commit
to the defence of the release hexes of the Soviet 21st and 23rd Tank
Corps, only to find that a variant has sprung them early, and that
they've just taken Krasnograd, which you stripped of defenders for
your cunning plan.


Of course, realism isn't the only goal. A game has to be fun, and this
battle is hugely enjoyable. Both sides get to unleash major offensive
power and both have moments of grim, even desperate defence, sometimes
on the same turn. The combination of Areas of Operations and Mystery
Variants takes you out of any comfort zone and creates tense, exciting
and highly variable battles.


Gregor"

-----

"Its good to see so much discussion about a single (optional) game
feature well before the game is released. I would hope that,
regardless of the discussions, people would keep an open mind until
they've actually used it in practice.


What the Area of Operations system does is allow you to get closer to
the historical situation that the battlefield commanders confronted
than our previous systems allowed. Real life commanders faced numerous
constraints with their actual orders and logistics being the most
important.


The AO system explicitly imposes constraints on what you can do. But
before the cries of 'give me wargaming without constraints or give
death!' ring out, remember that there are already plenty of
constraints in a wargame. Victory points are a good example. They are
obviously arbitrary, and they're a very potent mechanism by which the
scenario designer tells you, the player, what to do. The supply
system can be used in the same way, and I freely confess that we've
done this this before and still do it in Kharkov.


The AOs merely make clear what was less explicit before. They should
be thought of as embodying a Staff Officer, who tells you which of
your brilliant command decisions is feasible and which isn't. They
replace what would be tedious system which took account of road
movements, truck locations, supply stockpiles unit boundaries and so
on. Because it is a high level abstraction, it is an imperfect
reflection of reality, but we have many such abstractions in the game.
They are there because they make the game fun and give more or less
the right result.


Now if you want to shoot your staff officer, go right ahead, we give
you the gun to do it. I personally have come down on both sides of
this debate. I insisted on the 'radio' option in our American Civil
War game because I knew that there were some people (like me) who did
not want their brilliant command decisions getting lost or
misunderstood, even though that assuredly happened at the time.


In Kharkov however, I personally find the Staff Officer invaluable. He
tells me what my orders are and what forces I have available and
within those often very broad limits its up to me to do my best. Those
forces that I have available are then much more valuable to me than
might otherwise be the case, because I can't just casually 'borrow' a
couple of divisions from an adjacent formation if I stuff up.
Similarly, my reserve formations are very precious, and commitment of
them is a crucial and nerve wracking decision. In an open slather
system, this distinction is lost.


As for which role is being simulated, well we fudge this issue as I
think all operational level games must. In sense you are making Stalin
level decisions, but in saying that we must remember that Stalin
didn't move regiments and couldn't create roads, or trucks, simply by
decree. So the AO system does remove some of Stalin's god like powers
but rewards you with a much better understanding of the realities
faced by lower level commanders.


The AO system also makes the Mystery Variants work. In essence, at the
start of the battle, both sides have most of their cards on the table,
but are each dealt one or two extra. Obviously, you only know what
your own cards are. This fact greatly reduces the effectivesness of
canned openings and gamey tactics, which greatly increases the
replayability of the game.


We will be using this system in our next game and while I can't tell
you what that is, I can point to a previous game, Korsun Pocket, where
it would have come in very handy. What better way to embody Hitler's
order than to simply prevent the unfortunates in the pocket from
leaving in the first place. Of course, the Mystery Variants could have
Hitler relenting earlier, or much earlier, giving the Soviet player
plenty to think about. Syudents of history can probably think of other
battles where this feature could come in very handy.


Finally, the AOs are only hexes painted on the map in the Editor, with
a few bits of associated data. They are easy to change and we will, as
we always do, listen to feedback.


Gregor "

"Just to clarify, the Area of Operations applies to a formation, and
restricts all units belonging to that formation to operating within
that area. Most units in Kharkov are regiments, some specialised units
are battalions. However, within that area, you can move any regiment
wherever you like.


I chose the Soviet Tank Corps as an example because I wanted to
illustrate the varying methods by which they could be released, either
by taking objectives or the passage of time. As I said before, 6th
Army Units, which include 3rd and 23rd Panzer Divisions can go from
Belgororod, to south of Krasnograd and south east past Izyum, which
represents a pretty large scope for operations.


When we look at a battle like Kharkov, we aim firstly to recreate the
setting and fundamental forces that shaped the historical battle, and
I think our new system has done our best job yet of doing that. Within
that setting, there is still tremendous scope for variability. In an
otherwise close game against Ian Trout I moved a single infantry
regiment, which fatally weakened my entire defensive structure in
front of Kharkov and allowed the bolshevik hordes to pour through and
capture the city. The only upside was that, being already on the
Russian Front, no further punishment was available for my blunder.


Both sides in Kharkov will find themselves attacking and defending
simultaneously, so getting the balance right can be very tricky. This,
game, more than any others of ours, has also illustrated the critical
nature of the immediate counter-attack in defense. By far the best way
to rid yourself of those pesky Russian Tank Corps is to have
uncommitted forces, together with loads of available artillery, so you
can clobber them as they advance into contested ground and before they
can dig in. Easier said than done, of course.


Gregor "

It's also apparent that the player can't truly create a plan from whole cloth. He's limited to the given variants.

That is my main point...that I'm not being given the option to plan, I am merely being told "this is your plan".

Also, the AOs are optional and you can turn them off and play just as with all prior SSG games.

That's a fair point....at least both are catered for.

However, my concern is that a limited reactive AI is being programmed in favour of AoOs and MVs. How smart is the AI going to be without the "guidance" of these tools. In other words, being able to switch off the AoOs and MVs may show a weak AI in the battle.

That is, of course, speculation at this moment...but it is a concern that these AoOs and MVs are in place to prevent exploits in a weak AI.

One other concern....these AoOs...they will be "mixed and matched"...but surely there is some "link" between the ones being offered one side and the options being offered the other side. In other words, if the Russians AoOs allow for x amount of reinforcements in the southern sector, does the Axis AoOs not tie in to "match" those forces. If so, it kind of takes away some of the randomness of the scenario. And yet, if it doesn't pan out that way, then are you not going to end up with a grossly unbalanced scenario.

Don't get me wrong, the introduction of AoOS and MVs sound interesting and innovative concepts and anything that introduces longevity into a game can only be a good thing. But they are new concepts and therefore, if not implemented right, could fail the game.

These are speculative, I grant you, but as details of the game are coming out, they are concerns I have of the system.

Well, I just read that lengthy post and it has put my mind at ease to some degree.