Desert War: Eastern Front '42

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

What capabilities do you want to see instituted in a WEGO progression of the Desert War Engine (DWE) circa 1942 Russian Front?

This will be a leap of faith me thinks ….

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: bcgames

What capabilities do you want to see instituted in a WEGO progression of the Desert War Engine (DWE) circa 1942 Russian Front?

This will be a leap of faith me thinks ….

I don't understand your comment; can you expand on your thought?

[GaretBale]

I agree with random game generator.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek

The way ahead:

* Half the Desert War hex scale from 2-miles to one mile per hex (1600 meters).
* "Double" the time scale from three to five turns per day (4 day, 1 night).
* Retain the company/battalion scale and all the unique, unit type capabilities found in Desert War.
* Add new unit types (bridging engineers, partisans, security, ski units).
* Scenarios should consist of no more than two corps per side.
* Average scenario length should be on average two to three days time (10-15 turns)...some shorter (a day--5 turns), some longer (6 days--30 turns). None longer.
* Bottom Line (My Read): Many like/want smaller, shorter scenarios. Some want larger, longer scenarios. The Priority goes to what The Many want and what we can do.

That sounds to me like a TODO list to get behind. Thanks for keeping the WEGO dream alive and looking forward to the East Front game.

Totally agree on the above list PLUS:

+ linked historical scenarios for both sides (i.e follow a real unit through real engagements during the campaign!)
+ more terrain/weather types (for scenario development)
+ bridge units!
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'.
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: GaretBale

I agree with random game generator.

I like this idea in principle.

We did this in MadMinute Game's Take Command: Second Manassas. Selecting a map and selecting an OB is doable with a little work. But...positioning stuff at-start in other than a random dispersal is a bit more of a challenge. What allowed it to work in TC2M was having defined Civil War formations that included auto-positioning within the designated formation...e.g. Corps_Line is the formation with defined distances between divisions laterally and in depth; positions are defined as well--division 1 is ALWAYS on the left of the line, division 2 is ALWAYS on the right, division 3 is ALWAYS located in the center, and corps arty is ALWAYS positioned behind division 3. We don't have this capability in the Desert War engine. Even if we did, American Civil War formations are not applicable to WWII.

Given the work effort required to make it happen, I don't see this happening in the Stalingrad Game--a BIG MONKEY WRENCH at this point in development. BUT...I'm willing to give it a try in game 3 -- Monty's Front. I have some ideas about how to do it. We'll see.

Thanks for the feedback!

[bcgames]

Hey Governato!

ORIGINAL: governato

Totally agree on the above list PLUS:

+ linked historical scenarios for both sides (i.e follow a real unit through real engagements during the campaign!)

In the works.

ORIGINAL: governato
+ more terrain/weather types (for scenario development)

Done.

ORIGINAL: governato'
+ bridge units!

Done.

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.

Can you expand on this? What more beyond what is already in Desert War?

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'.

Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you expand on this though a bit? Thanks.

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value

Interesting idea. I need to think about this one. This is a Monty's War wish list item.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Hey Governato!

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.
Can you expand on this? What more beyond what is already in Desert War?

well the players have almost full info on the status and location of their own units right? That is not necessarily the case in RL. Any way to simulate that?

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'.
Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you expand on this though a bit? Thanks.

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value
Interesting idea. I need to think about this one. This is a Monty's War wish list item.

Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

[wodin]

I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.

So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.

Also even if only chrome would like to see actual casualty figures.

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also even if only chrome would like to see actual casualty figures.

Yes, that's on the ToDo list, pretty low down, but it's there! [8D]

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.

ORIGINAL: bcgames
Can you expand on this? What more beyond what is already in Desert War?

ORIGINAL: governato
well the players have almost full info on the status and location of their own units right? That is not necessarily the case in RL. Any way to simulate that?

Ah! I got you. I think this can be simulated/represented in the game. I have some ideas on how to do it and how to present it. More to follow...

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.

So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.

Desert War and the Stalingrad game do not include anything that could be described as commander stats. Can you expand on the idea of "commander stats" and how the game mechanics should account for them? Thanks!

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'...

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

We have the Command & Control Delay Value (CCV) which can be set in the editor for each side. This value is heavily influenced by the quality and readiness of the unit. IIRC the CCV capability was added as a direct result of your input...it's been a few years now so I may be mistaken. Regardless, how to you think we should build on the CCV foundation?

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value...

...Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

I like it. Got some ideas on how to do it using the AI tab. More to follow...

When do we see this capability appearing? Not before Monty's Front...

As always, thanks for the feedback!

[governato]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value...

...Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

I like it. Got some ideas on how to do it using the AI tab. More to follow...

When do we see this capability appearing? Not before Monty's Front...

As always, thanks for the feedback!

I like this idea ESPECIALLY if the player is allowed to change the other player/AI allocation As in: how many VP or resources would you be willing to give up to decrease your opponent's fuel/ammos or change their time table/objectives? ...I have seen this at work in TV chef reality shows and it was really fun...

[governato]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'...

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

We have the Command & Control Delay Value (CCV) which can be set in the editor for each side. This value is heavily influenced by the quality and readiness of the unit. IIRC the CCV capability was added as a direct result of your input...it's been a few years now so I may be mistaken. Regardless, how to you think we should build on the CCV foundation?

ah right! Glad to know I was smart at some point . I'd extend on the concept wherever CCV or `strength/ values do not play a role already ...for example cooperation bonuses/column shift my fail for weaker units (as in: damn the artillery barrage was 20 mins late than planned!) , recon maybe more effective for certain units because staff (not planes) are better etc etc...

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato
I like this idea ESPECIALLY if the player is allowed to change the other player/AI allocation As in: how many VP or resources would you be willing to give up to decrease your opponent's fuel/ammos or change their time table/objectives? ...I have seen this at work in TV chef reality shows and it was really fun...

Manstein: Master Chef Throw-down! Last time was payback...This time--it's babyback!

But seriously, this might be a good idea for the front-end of the division and/or corps-level campaigns (connected scenario sets). An interesting idea to be explored further. Thanks!

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato
ah right! Glad to know I was smart at some point . I'd extend on the concept wherever CCV or `strength/ values do not play a role already ...for example cooperation bonuses/column shift my fail for weaker units (as in: damn the artillery barrage was 20 mins late than planned!) , recon maybe more effective for certain units because staff (not planes) are better etc etc...

I'm going to matrix-out the potential CCV touch-points in the engine and see where to go from there. Off the top of my head, CCV might be a nice "power-up" for success in the linked campaign scenarios.

[bcgames]

As I go into heavy production mode for the next game (Fall-Winter) I see a long road ahead. I just finished building the OB for the Stalingrad Front and am now working on the Southwestern Front...to be followed shortly by the Don Front OB. Oh tedium. This game is huge...maps, OBs, imagery...easily 10 times bigger than Desert War. It's a MEGA-MONSTER despite my best efforts. Small slices is the only way forward. Need to fine tune the campaign editor to make amends. Small, smaller, smallest--all the HARDEST to attain. I'm not going to meet the two-year anniversary of Desert War for the next game.

Onwards!

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: wodin

I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.

So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.

Desert War and the Stalingrad game do not include anything that could be described as commander stats. Can you expand on the idea of "commander stats" and how the game mechanics should account for them? Thanks!

Well a useless leader can have great troops under his command and waste the lot, history is filled with useless leaders squandering their troops. Now a great leader can make mediocre troops into world beaters even bring poor troops upto to fighting quality, again history is full of this kind of thing. Leaders and leadership just isn't valued enough in wargames I feel. SOme leaders where expert in defense, others attack and others though rare great at everything. Some where useless at everything. Or take Paulus a great administrator but not great at leading troops in combat. The you have leaders like Rommel very aggressive, risk taker, motivator maybe not the best dealing with thos eof higher rank. Or Monty, cautious, methodical, risk averse (when he wasn't we got MArket Garden!).

So I feel leaders should effect attacking, defending, movement rates (so showing the difference between a Rommel or Patton compared to a Monty), have an effect on how quickly an attack can be organised infact a leader should effect all aspects regarding how long things take for troops under their command to do something, willingness to take casualties or not and logistics. In both positive and negative ways. I'd check out the historical commanders to see how they are rated.

Command Ops had alot of leader stats but the game never took it far enough, you couldn't tell in performance if the leader was aggressive or not etc. Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa raised the bar on leaders and their effect on the game.

Make leaders mean something like real life.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well a useless leader can have great troops under his command and waste the lot, history is filled with useless leaders squandering their troops...Make leaders mean something like real life.

Good idea. I have some strong thoughts on how to emplement it. It will not happen in Stalingrad--but Monty's Front is wide open as a solid idea.