The challenges of designing a WWII game

Clemens August · 07-04-2002, 11:26

So it is after all the WWII game. www.wargamer.com was on spot when suggesting so a couple of months ago. They seem to have some source in Strategy First, I wagger.

A WWII game is VERY ambitious endeavor. I can well picture the province-based system working in simulating this conflict, but clearly simply rehashing the EU model will not suffice. Paradox will have to offer fundamental changes, not mere tweaks as seen in EU2.

Land and Naval warfare defies the categories of EU. Indeed, the skies as a new battleground may be the least of the challenges. In WWII, there is no more campaign warfare as seen from Agincourt to Waterloo, but continuous fronts - static and mobile - are the mark of the day. I wonder how Paradox will attempt to do this justice. Resorting to a beer and pretzel solution ala Axis & Allies would however be disappointing. Blitzkrieg tactics and entrenched lines should have both a place in such a game. Logistics must have a far greater role just as the industrial war effort.

Equally, naval warfare is no less complex. surface-to-surface, naval air combat and submarine warfare need to be simulated. Yet more importantly the navy must be accorded the historical importance and role it did play. A merchant fleet, at least in abstracts, must be incorporated. Already EU1/2 suffer immensely from the rather meaningless naval model.

Don't get me wrong. I do not call for the grognard minutae and obsession with details, but rather for a sound incorporation of the basic issues of mid-20th century warfare. There is no need to provide the characteristics of a Stuka bomber or an Essex class carrier. Here there is room for a generic approach as seen in EU. But the basic feel of WWII is indeed a requirement.

Further, another challenge lies in getting the balance between historical accuracy and strategic diversity of player choices right. A '36 setup should provide for more varied strategies than '39.

In a '39 scenario, the strategic options open to the Axis (having the initiative) should be similar to those offered in World in Flames - the ultimate boardgame simulation of the War. Germany has to attack Poland, but does have basically the choice of a 39 assault on the West or taking out several minors (securing the Baltic etc) before the historical '40 OPeration Gelb. There are other options freely available such as an early strike at a yet feeble Russia prior to France's fall, but that is at least a high risk/high yield strategy rarely opted for, even though I'd say feasible. After the Fall of France a Mediterranean/Middle-East/Late Barbarossa (basically the Fortress Europa strategy) or Sealion or a 41 Barbarossa are the basic options, although combinations - if very successful - are possible. These are all historically feasible and at points also pursued strategies and no WIF game plays the same. I would like to see HOI offering a similar diversity of options while maintaining some bearance to reality.

Well, WIF is the model, if admittedly too detailed for the purposes of HOI in many regards. But the basic flavor should be captured. I'd consider HOI a failure as the "definitive WWII strategic experience" if it presented such sometimes unfeasible results as EU1/2. I also believe that players WANT to step in Churchill's, Roosevelt's and (as a matter of fact) Hitler's shoes, rather than fighting ficticious campaigns in Latin America with the German Condor Legion, opposed to the Ardennes or the Russian steppes. People want to face similar challenges and difficulties as the real leaders faced.

Further, I suggest that minors are not made playable, but handled similar to the way they are influenced by fascist/communist/democratic powers in the "Days of Decision". Such currying for the favors of those nations seems far more fun and realistic than letting Mexico or Switzerland attempt world conquest (yuk!). Days of Decision certainly should serve as the model for the diplomatic part of the game.

As for the economic part, a division in raw materials and factories, plus the rail and merchant shipping links a la WIF would be grand, complemented by strategic bombardment, partisan warfare, supply, longterm armament and R&D strategies.

This all IS feasible in an RT setting. I hope that HOI is getting there. If however HOI is a mere remake of EU in an other setting (but with quite similar mechanics), then I will sorely disappointed and have to wait for an other companies WWII grand strategic efforts. I sure hope not. In such a case, Cusader Kings will be far more to my liking. In any case, Paradox cannot ONLY bank on the EU engine, but has to radically alter and improve the RT-province concept to the setting's requirements.

von Murrin · 07-04-2002, 11:42

Interesting. I too agree that WiF/DoD would make a great model for HoI. Ever play Advanced Third Reich (A3R) or Rising Sun (RS)? They were made by Avalon Hill (sniff, sniff

) and can be combined to create a global WW2 game. A3R/RS had spectacular diplomacy and research models, not to mention their treatment of strategic warfare.

It's fun to speculate, but I won't get excited or concerned until I see what Paradox has come up with.

von Curow · 07-04-2002, 11:55

You didn't mention two important issues for an EU-based WW2 game: attrition and nationalism.

When I see players talking about playing an axis Canada, for example, I wonder if this will be feasible in the game system. Politically, there should definitely be such options or such a scenario should be doable in the editor (if there really will be an editor). However, what if Canada conquers the northeastern US? How much of an economic benefit will this be in the time frame of the game? What about manpower? Even if they conquered it in 1939, there is no way that by 1946 Canada would have achieved a level of control whereby they could seriously enjoy the manpower advantages of controlling such an area. Meanwhile, presumably there would have been serious fighting with the US to regain the territory. Would Canada be capable of building units forever, regardless of attrition?

This brings up the issue of manpower limits. In my opinion the limits imposed by EU2 were never wholly successful, though they were correctly based on money instead of available population (money being the limiting factor in that era). However, in WW2 terms, manpower has become the limiting factor and there should be simply some upward limit on how many divisions a small nation can have in play at any one time.

(I know the Third Reich had a limit to each nation's force pool based on this. Not sure about World in Flames, but I think any realistic grand strategy game should take this seriously into account.)

von Murrin · 07-04-2002, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by von Curow
This brings up the issue of manpower limits. In my opinion the limits imposed by EU2 were never wholly successful, though they were correctly based on money instead of available population (money being the limiting factor in that era). However, in WW2 terms, manpower has become the limiting factor and there should be simply some upward limit on how many divisions a small nation can have in play at any one time.

(I know the Third Reich had a limit to each nation's force pool based on this. Not sure about World in Flames, but I think any realistic grand strategy game should take this seriously into account.)

WiF confers so many priorities upon the player that he effectively has forcepool limits. I'd be dumbstruck if Paradox builds a game that would allow, say Switzerland, to build troops for 5 years, DoW Italy, and rush 60 infantry divs and 30 armor divs across the border. Won't happen.

von Curow · 07-04-2002, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by von Murrin

WiF confers so many priorities upon the player that he effectively has forcepool limits. I'd be dumbstruck if Paradox builds a game that would allow, say Switzerland, to build troops for 5 years, DoW Italy, and rush 60 infantry divs and 30 armor divs across the border. Won't happen.

I hope it won't!

Zagys · 07-04-2002, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Clemens August
Further, I suggest that minors are not made playable, but handled similar to the way they are influenced by fascist/communist/democratic powers in the "Days of Decision". Such currying for the favors of those nations seems far more fun and realistic than letting Mexico or Switzerland attempt world conquest (yuk!). Days of Decision certainly should serve as the model for the diplomatic part of the game.

"I just conquered the world with Guatemala!" is what I don't EVER want to see as a title for a thread in the HOI forum. Enough said.

I agree with you totally on the rest of your post too btw.

Clemens August · 07-04-2002, 14:29

I have not played Advanced Third Reich or Rising Sun. I have been tempted to buy it, but WIF is really more than enough. And from what I've seen, read and heard about A3R, I am quite happy to be without it, although checking out other approaches to the subject seems alone interesting enough. I would welcome a more in-depth comparison of WIF and A3R.

Diplomacy and Research:

Well, frankly in WIF I do not see any further requirement for diplomacy. It's really up to the players without rules restraints and several more detailed rules simulate e.g. Russo-Japanese negotiations etc. DoD offers all the Diplomacy one could want, allowing for yet greater diversion from actual history. What has A3R to offer in this regard?

As for Research, it's abstracted into WIF, by the gradual improvement of units plus some optional rules. I believe this keeps things simply and I have no need for further chrome there. ADG kept the game "simple" by doing without elaborate research rules.

Indeed, I think that DOD/WIF should be what the boardgame EU was to EU CG. Take out the number-crunching, bookkeeping, some of the chrome and adjust it to a province based map (I would admittedly prefer hexes) and RT.

Tamas · 07-04-2002, 15:32

If they would not allow playing minors, my interest in the game would decrease to about 10%. I don't want to conquer the world as Luxembourg, but I do want to try out many different nations in that era. (Of course this is mostly driven by the fact that my country was a minor power in the war, and I am very interested in giving Hungary a try in a WWII EU).

Idiotboy · 07-04-2002, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Zagys

"I just conquered the world with Guatemala!" is what I don't EVER want to see as a title for a thread in the HOI forum. Enough said.

I agree with you totally on the rest of your post too btw.

The challenge in this case will be to make those nations fun to play. While a minor won´t command great campaigns I hope that there is a viable option to be a minor partner. For some reason in EU, I always end up being the leader because the AI isn´t making it fun to play second fiddle.

**Patric** · 07-04-2002, 15:43

If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try :) We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time :)

Patric

fuath · 07-04-2002, 15:59

hello sleepless nights!

Patric123 · 07-04-2002, 20:09

on the playable nations thing i think minor countries should be able to send troops to whichever alliance they are in . e.g Brazil sends 3,000 troops to London to help defeat axis in france

HisMajestyBOB · 07-04-2002, 21:33

Just put 'em on a transport and send them over. If they just appear in England, then that totally defeats the purpose of trying to blockade England with U-boats.

von Murrin · 07-04-2002, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Clemens August
I would welcome a more in-depth comparison of WIF and A3R.

Well, frankly in WIF I do not see any further requirement for diplomacy. It's really up to the players without rules restraints and several more detailed rules simulate e.g. Russo-Japanese negotiations etc. DoD offers all the Diplomacy one could want, allowing for yet greater diversion from actual history. What has A3R to offer in this regard?

As for Research, it's abstracted into WIF, by the gradual improvement of units plus some optional rules. I believe this keeps things simply and I have no need for further chrome there. ADG kept the game "simple" by doing without elaborate research rules.

WiF is more detailed in general than A3R/RS. For example, only US/Japanese CV's are represented as individual units.

Diplomacy: A3R/RS uses a point system. Each nation receives so many as a base, and more based on the strength of the economy. Each nation then spends them on other nations they would like to influence. The points of opposing nations cancel out, with the remainder being used to modify a die roll which is then compared to a chart for the affected nation. This is much more simple and dirty than the model for WiF, but allows for more suprises and some good backstabbing.

It's not better, just different.

Research: The same basic system as is used for diplomacy. The difference is that there are oodles of categories for potential research, and an additional general sub-category within each area of research. It's really not as complicated as I make it sound. The advantage is that no nation will ever be able to realize the benefits of even a quarter of the potential categories as there are just too many for the amount of points that a nation would have to spend.

The advantage is that a player would have to formulate a research strategy that would be complementary to his overall game strategy before the game even starts. It also allows the game to be almost infinitely replayable.

It'll be interesting to see what Paradox has in mind, as when I first bought EU2, I thought the engine would be a great base for a WW2 game.

The Federalist · 07-04-2002, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Patric
If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time

Patric

Paradox. . .

*sniff*

I love you guys. . .

*sniff*

Give us a GREAT game, guys. And we'll continue to be your faithful customers and fans. . .

Besuchov · 07-04-2002, 22:50

One problem I forsee adapting the EU engine to WW2 is motorized warfare. A fully mechanized force could drive across france in a day if there was no resitance and it could take months if they won their battles with small margin. In EU you won a battle or you lost it, by that you gain control of the province, that really don't work when a battle reaches over sevelral provinces. I'm really looking forward to seeing how Paradox deals with this.

Licou · 07-04-2002, 23:57

What is wif?

Idiotboy · 08-04-2002, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Licou
What is wif?

I would guess "world in flames"

Sonny · 08-04-2002, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Patric
If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time

Patric

I just checked my watch and it is DUE time - Daylight EU time.

07-04-2002, 11:26	#1
Clemens August Major Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 563	The challenges of designing a WWII game So it is after all the WWII game. www.wargamer.com was on spot when suggesting so a couple of months ago. They seem to have some source in Strategy First, I wagger. A WWII game is VERY ambitious endeavor. I can well picture the province-based system working in simulating this conflict, but clearly simply rehashing the EU model will not suffice. Paradox will have to offer fundamental changes, not mere tweaks as seen in EU2. Land and Naval warfare defies the categories of EU. Indeed, the skies as a new battleground may be the least of the challenges. In WWII, there is no more campaign warfare as seen from Agincourt to Waterloo, but continuous fronts - static and mobile - are the mark of the day. I wonder how Paradox will attempt to do this justice. Resorting to a beer and pretzel solution ala Axis & Allies would however be disappointing. Blitzkrieg tactics and entrenched lines should have both a place in such a game. Logistics must have a far greater role just as the industrial war effort. Equally, naval warfare is no less complex. surface-to-surface, naval air combat and submarine warfare need to be simulated. Yet more importantly the navy must be accorded the historical importance and role it did play. A merchant fleet, at least in abstracts, must be incorporated. Already EU1/2 suffer immensely from the rather meaningless naval model. Don't get me wrong. I do not call for the grognard minutae and obsession with details, but rather for a sound incorporation of the basic issues of mid-20th century warfare. There is no need to provide the characteristics of a Stuka bomber or an Essex class carrier. Here there is room for a generic approach as seen in EU. But the basic feel of WWII is indeed a requirement. Further, another challenge lies in getting the balance between historical accuracy and strategic diversity of player choices right. A '36 setup should provide for more varied strategies than '39. In a '39 scenario, the strategic options open to the Axis (having the initiative) should be similar to those offered in World in Flames - the ultimate boardgame simulation of the War. Germany has to attack Poland, but does have basically the choice of a 39 assault on the West or taking out several minors (securing the Baltic etc) before the historical '40 OPeration Gelb. There are other options freely available such as an early strike at a yet feeble Russia prior to France's fall, but that is at least a high risk/high yield strategy rarely opted for, even though I'd say feasible. After the Fall of France a Mediterranean/Middle-East/Late Barbarossa (basically the Fortress Europa strategy) or Sealion or a 41 Barbarossa are the basic options, although combinations - if very successful - are possible. These are all historically feasible and at points also pursued strategies and no WIF game plays the same. I would like to see HOI offering a similar diversity of options while maintaining some bearance to reality. Well, WIF is the model, if admittedly too detailed for the purposes of HOI in many regards. But the basic flavor should be captured. I'd consider HOI a failure as the "definitive WWII strategic experience" if it presented such sometimes unfeasible results as EU1/2. I also believe that players WANT to step in Churchill's, Roosevelt's and (as a matter of fact) Hitler's shoes, rather than fighting ficticious campaigns in Latin America with the German Condor Legion, opposed to the Ardennes or the Russian steppes. People want to face similar challenges and difficulties as the real leaders faced. Further, I suggest that minors are not made playable, but handled similar to the way they are influenced by fascist/communist/democratic powers in the "Days of Decision". Such currying for the favors of those nations seems far more fun and realistic than letting Mexico or Switzerland attempt world conquest (yuk!). Days of Decision certainly should serve as the model for the diplomatic part of the game. As for the economic part, a division in raw materials and factories, plus the rail and merchant shipping links a la WIF would be grand, complemented by strategic bombardment, partisan warfare, supply, longterm armament and R&D strategies. This all IS feasible in an RT setting. I hope that HOI is getting there. If however HOI is a mere remake of EU in an other setting (but with quite similar mechanics), then I will sorely disappointed and have to wait for an other companies WWII grand strategic efforts. I sure hope not. In such a case, Cusader Kings will be far more to my liking. In any case, Paradox cannot ONLY bank on the EU engine, but has to radically alter and improve the RT-province concept to the setting's requirements.

07-04-2002, 11:42	#2
von Murrin Lost in the sauce, baby! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Texas?! How did I get Here? Posts: 430	Interesting. I too agree that WiF/DoD would make a great model for HoI. Ever play Advanced Third Reich (A3R) or Rising Sun (RS)? They were made by Avalon Hill (sniff, sniff ) and can be combined to create a global WW2 game. A3R/RS had spectacular diplomacy and research models, not to mention their treatment of strategic warfare. It's fun to speculate, but I won't get excited or concerned until I see what Paradox has come up with. __________________ Because nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session. Has been Hugged by Blade!.

07-04-2002, 11:55	#3
von Curow Major Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Quincy, Mass. Posts: 792	You didn't mention two important issues for an EU-based WW2 game: attrition and nationalism. When I see players talking about playing an axis Canada, for example, I wonder if this will be feasible in the game system. Politically, there should definitely be such options or such a scenario should be doable in the editor (if there really will be an editor). However, what if Canada conquers the northeastern US? How much of an economic benefit will this be in the time frame of the game? What about manpower? Even if they conquered it in 1939, there is no way that by 1946 Canada would have achieved a level of control whereby they could seriously enjoy the manpower advantages of controlling such an area. Meanwhile, presumably there would have been serious fighting with the US to regain the territory. Would Canada be capable of building units forever, regardless of attrition? This brings up the issue of manpower limits. In my opinion the limits imposed by EU2 were never wholly successful, though they were correctly based on money instead of available population (money being the limiting factor in that era). However, in WW2 terms, manpower has become the limiting factor and there should be simply some upward limit on how many divisions a small nation can have in play at any one time. (I know the Third Reich had a limit to each nation's force pool based on this. Not sure about World in Flames, but I think any realistic grand strategy game should take this seriously into account.) __________________ The closer you are to Caesar, the greater the fear. "I travelled among unknown men, In lands beyond the sea: Nor, [America]! did I know till then What love I bore to thee." --with apologies to William Wordsworth

07-04-2002, 15:43	#10
Patric Alien Administrator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Stockholm Posts: 3,549	If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try :) We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time :) Patric __________________ No sig...

07-04-2002, 21:33	#13
HisMajestyBOB Eukaryote Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: 대한민국, 인천 (Incheon, Republic of Korea) Posts: 3,161	Just put 'em on a transport and send them over. If they just appear in England, then that totally defeats the purpose of trying to blockade England with U-boats. __________________ "It is as if China went to the prom with one partner, Russia, went home with another, the United States, and then married the latter while wooing its jilted original date as a mistress." - Stephen Kotkin, The Unbalanced Triangle Check out Arsenal of Democracy, an upcoming game using the Hearts of Iron 2 engine! You have lost The Game. Sorry. Number of victims: 16?

07-04-2002, 14:29	#7
Clemens August Major Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 563	I have not played Advanced Third Reich or Rising Sun. I have been tempted to buy it, but WIF is really more than enough. And from what I've seen, read and heard about A3R, I am quite happy to be without it, although checking out other approaches to the subject seems alone interesting enough. I would welcome a more in-depth comparison of WIF and A3R. Diplomacy and Research: Well, frankly in WIF I do not see any further requirement for diplomacy. It's really up to the players without rules restraints and several more detailed rules simulate e.g. Russo-Japanese negotiations etc. DoD offers all the Diplomacy one could want, allowing for yet greater diversion from actual history. What has A3R to offer in this regard? As for Research, it's abstracted into WIF, by the gradual improvement of units plus some optional rules. I believe this keeps things simply and I have no need for further chrome there. ADG kept the game "simple" by doing without elaborate research rules. Indeed, I think that DOD/WIF should be what the boardgame EU was to EU CG. Take out the number-crunching, bookkeeping, some of the chrome and adjust it to a province based map (I would admittedly prefer hexes) and RT.

07-04-2002, 15:32	#8
Tamas Colonel Join Date: May 2000 Location: Hungary Posts: 1,114	If they would not allow playing minors, my interest in the game would decrease to about 10%. I don't want to conquer the world as Luxembourg, but I do want to try out many different nations in that era. (Of course this is mostly driven by the fact that my country was a minor power in the war, and I am very interested in giving Hungary a try in a WWII EU).

07-04-2002, 15:59	#11
fuath Sergeant Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Ballyliffin, Irish Republic Posts: 90	hello sleepless nights!

07-04-2002, 20:09	#12
Patric123 wannabe american Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: U.K/USA Posts: 801	on the playable nations thing i think minor countries should be able to send troops to whichever alliance they are in . e.g Brazil sends 3,000 troops to London to help defeat axis in france

07-04-2002, 22:50	#16
Besuchov Lead Programmer\Assistant Producer Paradox Dev Team Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Stockhom, Sweden Posts: 1,630	One problem I forsee adapting the EU engine to WW2 is motorized warfare. A fully mechanized force could drive across france in a day if there was no resitance and it could take months if they won their battles with small margin. In EU you won a battle or you lost it, by that you gain control of the province, that really don't work when a battle reaches over sevelral provinces. I'm really looking forward to seeing how Paradox deals with this.

07-04-2002, 23:57	#17
Licou Phobophile Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville (NOT LONGOEIL) - Québec, Canada Posts: 1,337	What is wif? __________________ Don't miss my smily site for the Europa Universalis forum!