Barbarossa developer Notes #3: Who Is Going To Make My Cup Of Coffee In The Morning?

[Vic]

---

Previously published on the VR weblog.
Prior to release of our new game BARBAROSSA we are publishing a series of developer notes by designer Cameron Harris.
Be sure to visit www.vrdesigns.nl for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs

---

The Chain of Command

This is a little trickier than it first appears. Yes there is a Chain of Command. But where does the Player sit within it?

Most military simulation type games answer this by having you, the Player, being at the very apex of whatever Chain of Command exists. It’s an easy way to do it. You are the guy in charge. You make all the decisions. There is no need to worry about the implications of a hierarchy.

There are multiple subordinates who willing carry out your wishes. They are typically portrayed as a collection of stats. Their main purpose is to apply those stats as bonuses to various game mechanics. They have no opinions or agendas of their own. Their raison d’etre is to carry out your orders as invisible, one dimensional characters, who are there in the same way as a mountain is <em>there</em>.

Of course not all games are like this. There are some excellent examples in other genres but they are rarely found in the world of military simulations.

Back to the topic. The game takes a dual approach to the Chain of Command. For the Germans the Player is placed within the hierarchy whereas the Soviet Player finds himself representing the man at the top, Stalin. This allows the game to present two very different Command experiences.

---

Traction equipment lacking: Tests now in progress to determine serviceability of French traction equipment. Only limited mobility. Will have supply vehicles, but tactical mobility cannot be achieved (no ammunition columns). Two batteries are put on self-propelled mounts, to serve as heavy tank destroyers. “Traction Bns., motorised” could be formed, but chain of command and control would be very difficult in practice.

F.M Von Halder’s War Diary, 27th February, 1941

---

If you’re Stalin, you’re not going to be fussed about politics. Or opinions. You’re a ruthless dictator. Anybody steps out of line and you’ll have them lined up in front of a firing squad in short order. There is a directness and simplicity in being able to do exactly as you wish.

Is this then, the typical war game approach as mentioned above? No. People are still involved and while they aren’t going to argue the toss they will present other challenges. Still, once you put the Player at the head of the hierarchy the people aspect becomes less important. They tend to fade into the background. There needs to be a different focus.

What that focus might be did indeed present a design challenge. The approach I settled on was to make it an internal one - Stalin’s state of mind. More on this later but, for the Soviet Player, the role of the people involved, all of them subordinates, is not themselves but in what affect they have on Stalin himself.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Tejszd]

Interesting that there are 2 roles for the player in the game but disappointing that where you sit in the hierarchy is based on the side you choose....

[Michael T]

I like the idea of a game that tries to model the political realities of the war in Russia. Something I always wanted in WITE. But yes, why only for Germany?

[Vic]

Hi there,

As usual: criticism is always welcome.

I have to admit that some design choices (as with any game) are partly based on the time we had available to create the game.

But seriously! I like it that the Soviets play differently. Even if we had a year of extra dev time I would like to keep things as they are here. The Germans are quite intense to play and its nice to be able to switch sides and have a different more streamlined experience. At least for me it is. And its not like you do not have political worries playing Stalin... you do you do... you'll see.

Furthermore it creates a sense of asymmetry between the two sides, which helps the game as well I think.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Tamas]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I like the idea of a game that tries to model the political realities of the war in Russia. Something I always wanted in WITE. But yes, why only for Germany?

The game very much focuses on the political realities when you are playing the Soviet side as well. It's just that it does so from a different perspective!

Basically, you, taking the role of Stalin, have a different kind of command structure/establishment than the Germans, and you are managing it from the top, not "the middle".

I have found this fascinating, actually: technically it is the same computer game regardless of the side you choose, but they feel so different!

When playing the German side, you are a -very high ranked and decisive- cog in the machine, with people to deal with both above and below you, and having aspects (logistics, the airforce, most notably) that you are very dependent on but have no 100% control over. This is something, BTW, that were sorely missing from wargames.

When playing the Soviets, "on paper" you have everything under your absolute rule, but the entire organisation is weighed down by that very fact: the purges (which you can make less severe at the start of the campaign in exchange of Victory Points - an option for "what if" scenarios) left grossly inadequate people in many positions, your armies are geared and positioned for offense not defense, and due to you being the despot, nothing major happens without you directing it, and you only have so much time (Political Points).

Turn by turn you want to do much more than you are able to. It is about establishing your priorities, and sticking to them - or changing them due to unforeseen happenings!

Do you spend all you can do this turn on pushing through Red Army reforms, despite not seeing much profit on the short term? Are you replacing a Front commander? Are you sure? The new guy was a Tsarist general, you will have to keep an eye on him and you have so much to pay attention to already..., and you can't even be sure if he will be up for the job for real. Where are you sending your "not so voluntary" workforce to build fortifications? You have great troubleshooters in Zhukov and Khrushchev but you can't send them everywhere at once, etc.
Lots of flexibility and different approaches to try and mix from game to game.

[Michael T]

It was through Stalin's insane order to hold Kiev that the Soviets lost 600K POW's. Will that kind of thing be a possibility with the player as Stalin?

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It was through Stalin's insane order to hold Kiev that the Soviets lost 600K POW's. Will that kind of thing be a possibility with the player as Stalin?

Soviet army activation problems and a Stalin paranoid episode might result in something similar. But it will depend on how determined the Soviet player is to hold Kiev and take risks on the flanks of any defense there.

best wishes,
Vic

[Delaware]

This sounds like a fascinating game. I am eager for it. Please keep innovating the genre.
Forgive me for not knowing, but does Case Blue have these command personality dynamics or is this new with Barbarossa?

[Tamas]

ORIGINAL: Delaware

This sounds like a fascinating game. I am eager for it. Please keep innovating the genre.
Forgive me for not knowing, but does Case Blue have these command personality dynamics or is this new with Barbarossa?

It is new with Barbarossa.

[Michael T]

I really hope this game plays and sells well so we can get the entire 41-45 campaign in the east at this scale.