US 90 Div Gamble

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Nobody ever reported completing a game, even the playtesters.

Well, I'm rather glad I haven't run across it then. Maybe it makes me a part-time wargamer, but I'm more interested in strategic possibilities than the nth level of supply accuracy.

Perhaps that's why WiF suits me so nicely. That and my record for a solitaire WWII using it is ten days.........although I'm not saying how many hours a day I played!

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Where's Dark Knight to shut us down-no one else is participating here.

Still fixated on the bombings .

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Well, I'm rather glad I haven't run across it then. Maybe it makes me a part-time wargamer, but I'm more interested in strategic possibilities than the nth level of supply accuracy.

I could post a very long reply to that one.
Very few wargame systems have been able to effectively capture the effect of supply considerations on military operations.

[One of my favorites is The Legend Begins - ok, another obscure one, but designed by the not so obscure Mark Simonitch (who did so many maps for Command Magazine). Best game I've ever seen on the Desert in 1941, simple, elegant, and everything's there. The ONLY game I've played on the subject in which the rythmn of operations follows historical patterns, i.e. short bursts of furious activity followed by long periods of build-up (well, long in simulated time, not in actual playing time).]

for instance, how can you simulate artillery even remotely accurately without detailed rules on shell supply? beats me.

More specifically, and this is critical in the last stages of WWII, artillery was the critical arm in the US Army. They had an artillery doctrine very, very far ahead of everybody else.

Yet they were plagued by shell shortages due to bad pre-war planning up to the end of 1944.

So a US arty rgt in Normandy can be anything between lackluster and tremendously powerful depending upon the ammount of ammo it is supplied with. Shift the ammo supply, and the arty units have their fighting power shifted too.

How do you manage to simulate this if your supply rules are just the "trace back to supply source" kind?

(btw, my major gripe with Europa )

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
How do you manage to simulate this if your supply rules are just the "trace back to supply source" kind?

(btw, my major gripe with Europa )

You don't. There come times when you have to make a choice between playability and detail/accuracy increases. I note that the one game you really praised for its' supply system no-one's ever finished! We're not dealing with wargames played out by the real military here, we're just enthusiasts.

Not to mention having to sell the things. Games as big as Europa or WiF have to simplify this side of things......effectively giving the player an accurate benefit of eagle-eyed hindsight and period be damned. Players like tanks rather than trucks.

One needs a computer game with all these factors if one really wants to play a game with them, especially as I haven't mentioned book-keeping here.

Mark Simonitch does maps etc. for GMT now too......so I have heard of him, if not the game!

 

[unmerged(5120)]

The level of detail in CNA's supply rules isn't necessary.

The critical factor is that the amount of supply available is usually limited, either in amount (especially arty ammo and gun tubes), or in deliverability (is that an English word?).

Fully supplied units fight much better than the ones that aren't, so how you allocate a limited amount of supply is very important.

Also, the feasability of delivering supplies is a major consideration in operationnal/strategic planning.

The trace-and-get-a-fixed-amount doesn't reflect that very basic yet important aspect of military operations.

What I like in Legend Begins is the way supply is handled:

There are supply points which represent so many tons of whatever. The system assumes your staff is pretty efficient and includes the right mix. You move those points around by train, shipping and trucks. Units must trace to a supply point close by to be in general supply. Every turn, a fixed number of SP's are removed from the map to represent your forces basic consumption in a clever semi-random way that ensures that the ton.miles you used up to haul those removed SPs correlates with the distribution of troops on the map. (sounds complicated but it just takes a dice roll and it works well).

Then, attacking uses SP's, and attacking with arty support uses lots.
Artillery is very powerful, but using it can double or treble the cost of an attack, so it's a rich man's weapon.

The outcome of Crusader in this game usually follows historical lines pretty well: the going is hard on the British but they steadily inflict losses on the Axis, while Axis counterattacks simply chew up their targets. But the DAK has much less supply on hand, so the Brits can use arty a lot more - a great equalizer - and after a while the DAK can't attack any more because supply is running dangerously low so the only option left is packing up, even if the battle is going rather well for the Axis - which is usually the case if they've chosen to use a lot of supply.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Sir E and Agelastus,

I've enjoyed your discussion, and it leads me to the conclusion that a computer translation is crying out to be made. I briefly looked at WiF beta, but due to lack of time, and having to restudy the rules, I have not been able to see if it's the solution.

I like the idea of supply being a major factor in CNA, and the computer acting as bookeeper would most definately solve the playability issues, while maintaining a significant level of detail.

What I'm really looking for is a strategic game, or operational in the case of the Desert which has the player making decisions a commander would be making, and not moving units so that they remain in their HQ supply range.

There was a "game" called Patriot which "simulated" the Gulf War, well it was neither a game, nor did it simulate anything really, that had the potential to fullfill this wish. Units were not moved from one hex to another, but along a path of advance. Set a direction, and units to use that path, and watch the results. Patriot failed utterly, but that innovation was quite unique.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by sean9898
Sir E and Agelastus,

I've enjoyed your discussion, and it leads me to the conclusion that a computer translation is crying out to be made. I briefly looked at WiF beta, but due to lack of time, and having to restudy the rules, I have not been able to see if it's the solution.

I like the idea of supply being a major factor in CNA, and the computer acting as bookeeper would most definately solve the playability issues, while maintaining a significant level of detail.

What I'm really looking for is a strategic game, or operational in the case of the Desert which has the player making decisions a commander would be making, and not moving units so that they remain in their HQ supply range.

There was a "game" called Patriot which "simulated" the Gulf War, well it was neither a game, nor did it simulate anything really, that had the potential to fullfill this wish. Units were not moved from one hex to another, but along a path of advance. Set a direction, and units to use that path, and watch the results. Patriot failed utterly, but that innovation was quite unique.

There's always miniatures. GDW published a Barbarossa scenario for their Command Decision WWII miniature rules a few years ago. Until now, most computer wargames have been designed by porting the hex-based boardgame concept on computers. The miniatures path has yet to be fully exploited.

Otherwise, you might want to look up the output from The Gamers. Their games are of the not-that-complicated-rules-but-playing-makes-you-think-real-hard persuasion.

Usually, the idea is to have you think along the same lines as the real commander.
ie, in their CWB (Civil War, Brigade) series, you write orders to your corps commanders and then pray that they receive them at the right time and do what they're told quickly enough, or are bright enough to act on their own if they have to. CSA leaders are usually quicker to implement orders and better at using their own initiative than US leaders.

In their Operational Combat Series (Div/Reg/Bat, WWII), it's supply (how much do I have, where is it, where can I move it, does it need to be protected) and unit posture: are you deployed for movement or combat, and who's up and who's back (in reserve).

 

[Agelastus]

Sean9898
Phewww......I thought for a while that only two of us were ever going to participate in this discussion.

WiF's probably not too bad supply wise if you play with the (almost standard) limited overseas supply rules, since it forces you to prioritise use of your already overstretched convoys. Do you use some to extend a supply line so you can attack in one theatre, even if that shorts you on production this turn? Or is using all your factories important enough to risk having some units being overly vulnerable in the face of a determined enemy offensive. The oil rules also simulate supply problems nicely too.

Sire Enaique
From what I can tell (not having played them) a lot of GMT's games seem to use systems similar to the one you just described from "Legend Begins"-certainly their "Battle for North Africa" Game, and "East Front" series seem to. Not surprising when you consider the eminence of some of their designers........"The Times History of Warfare", recently published, had its' ancient warfare section written by Mark Herman and Richard Berg!

Although the editors of that book should have known more about their subject. A lot of typos got through, but that's quite common these days.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Sean9898
Phewww......I thought for a while that only two of us were ever going to participate in this discussion.

You two have been doing a good job on your own. Just hope Dark Knight will indulge us a little longer.

I never finished a WiF, it's hard being solitaire, and pretending not to know what the other part of the brain is doing. Managed to finish a lot of A3R, but I had a lot more free time in those days. I don't subscribe to the dogma that you have to love one and loathe the other, they are both similar and different, in that despite being set during the war, you get to do things commanders might only dream about.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Agelastus:

Tell me, wouldn't GMT have recruited Joe Balkoski as well?
So Herman is out doing games again? I met Berg last year at a convention and he told me that Herman was totally engrossed with his defense job. I'll have to have a look at GMT's website. Maybe we'll finally see Pacific War's 2nd edition? that'd be great!

Sean:

I do have reservations about 3R too, but I feel it's less inadequate and plays faster, so why bother with WiF?

And have you ever played SPI-TSR's WWII?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Tell me, wouldn't GMT have recruited Joe Balkoski as well?
So Herman is out doing games again? I met Berg last year at a convention and he told me that Herman was totally engrossed with his defense job. I'll have to have a look at GMT's website. Maybe we'll finally see Pacific War's 2nd edition? that'd be great!

I'm afraid Joe's name doesn't ring a bell. I think Herman's still active (certainly GMT only released his revamp of For the People in late 2000 and I'm sure I remember some mention on the site of his working on another project, although I can't recall what.)

Since you seem to enjoy fighting out Barbarossa etc, you may want to try GMT's East Front series.

http://www.gmtgames.com/

Sean9898
If you don't subscribe to that particular dogma, you seem to be in the minority, as some fairly spirited discussions on comsimworld show! All I can say is that I never felt A3R looked good enough to buy (and I did study it several times), but I felt like buying WiF from the first time I saw it.

Yes, I've only been a "real" wargamer for six years or so! Blame university.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


I'm afraid Joe's name doesn't ring a bell. I think Herman's still active (certainly GMT only released his revamp of For the People in late 2000 and I'm sure I remember some mention on the site of his working on another project, although I can't recall what.)

Since you seem to enjoy fighting out Barbarossa etc, you may want to try GMT's East Front series.

...

Yes, I've only been a "real" wargamer for six years or so! Blame university.

Ahhh those old bones are hurting again, ouch!
I bought my first game (Air Force) in 82, when I was 13.

Joe Balkoski designed many games for VG, including the Fleet series, Korean War, Omaha Beachhead, etc... He also wrote a very good book about 29th US div's fighting from Omaha to St Lo, Beyond the Beachhead.

I can't remember a game he did for SPI, though.

(VG was (initially) an attempt by AH to recover what they could of SPI's staff)