Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
Don't overlook boardgames.
With Computer Player Aids (ie Cyberboard, ACTs, etc) you have the equivalent of a computerized PBeM system.
And quite a few boardgames are being converted into TCP equivalents, which allows you to play on-line instead of face to face.
If anyone is interested, I could post a summary of them.
-
IGOUGO is the "traditional" one side does its turn, then the other side does its turn.
WEGO orginally was suppossed to be a "simultaenous" movement system... where both sides "plotted" thier moves, then when both sides where done, the moves where "executed" (ie actually done).
But as with all things, the WEGO was bastardized by some who wanted to show how there IGOUGO system was superior to normal IGOUGO systems. So to some people, WEGO is really a IGOUGO system with alot of reactive responses.
-
Ahhh... for the good old days of mayhem, then relaxing with some alcohol and women.
Todays young soldiers and Marines, are denyed that pleasure. No booze or women (its against regulations) in todays combat zones.
They do get the "comforts" of e-mail and computer games.
Guess its a good thing the chance of dying today is less than 5%, versus the past of 40% plus.
-
I basically agree with you, though I disagree about there being a Ground Combat defense, Ground Combat offense.
I think I understand what you're after, which is a way to represent the doctrine advantage Germany had at the start of the war, and the Allies learned as the war progressed.
But I'd accomplish that another way.
Mr H has gotten the basic approach correct, in that he has SOFT and TANK combat factors. SOFT representing the artillery and TANK representing the armored fighting vehicles (be they little "tankettes" or evolved "medium battle tanks").
We need some sort of Tech Advance for SOFT combat factors, not so much to represent better artillery, but rather a representation of heavier and/or more artillery. Without something like this, there is no way to represent the huge firepower advantages that "generic" US units had over everyone else.
Just as important, is another Tech category to represent Armored offensive power and its counter, anti-tank weapons. Again, Mr H has the basic concepts correct, but we get problems in the way its implemented.
Fighter Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, ASW, Submarine Warfare... I'm right there with you.
-
Regarding Third Reich...
There is a game called "Advanced Third Reich". Another game was developed that was called "Empire of the Rising Sun". One covered ETO/MTO, the other PTO.
The above two games were combined into a "global" game called "A World at War". Here is the website for this.
Official A World at War website.
The above game, that Edwin refers to, is officially known as 'John Prados' Third Reich.
John Prados' Third Reich, is the basic Third Reich game from 20 something years ago. I mean the very first Third Reich, not any of the subsequent "editions" that attempted to clean up and fix things.
What you have is the basic 3R system (BRP, force pools, maps) and thats it. Everything else, is brand new. That would be the combat, strategic warfare, random events, HQs, supply, invasions, diplomacy, coups, exploitation, even the sequence of play, are ALL new.
The idea was to simplfy it and put together a new system in about 20-30 pages of rules. For those of you who have been around a bit, its something like 3R meets Hitlers War. Price is about $50 or so.
At the other extreme, you have A World at War. This is the A3R system that most people are familiar with, the latest edition (I think its the 5th now) in the 3R "line". The complexity is high (rule book alone is about 150 pages), probably the most complex game I've ever played. Price is about $150.
One is a game, the other is a lifestyle choice.
-
Ditto what John C said.
-
Lock it up.
Btw, I liked the comment about "generating lots of heat, but little light". That was good.
-
Blashy, your last post, and perhaps by implication your other posts, isn't about luck.
Its about the effect Air units have, made worse by every Air Tech Advance.
-
Kozmeister, you're correct. But SC2 never claimed to represent WWII on a global scale.
One of the ways of representing a global conflict, while concentrating on a specific theater, is to have the other theaters represented by "off-map" or abstract mechanics (ie "event" cards).
The problem with a global map, is that the European/Med Theater at 50 miles/hex, doesn't mesh well with the Pacific Theater at 100-150 miles/hex. Not to mention that one is mainly a ground conflict, while the other is a air/naval conflict.
Hence, its much easier to simply abstract it out. Especially when you consider the effect it had, is the time spent including these areas worth it?
So while you could design in some of the concepts your mentioning, its just not worth the effort. Thats why you won't see the type of things you mentioned in a game that concentrates on the ETO.
-
I really don't understand the complaints about "luck".
The idea behind the research techs and the probablities of when you achieve the advance, is how Mr H is giving you replayability.
If you don't want to use it, because of some perceived notion that you as a player should be able to control everything, then in SC2, turn it off.
Tech research, in addition to replayability, also give you the historical uncertainity that the leaders of the times faced.
Fog of War, historical uncertainity, replayability, random weather, etc are all the things that make it a "wargame", as oppossed to a game.
-
While they may be "classics", compared to todays boardgames, they are no longer worth playing.
So why bother?
-
Headquarters
Random selection should be implemented, with no ability to disband a HQ.
Maximium limit per nation.
"Joint" HQ's should be the only HQ's that can command units from different nations. So Commonwealth units could not be commanded by US HQ's (or vice versa), unless it was a "Joint" command. Joint would simply be more expensive than your "normal" HQ. Free French would be considered US units.
-
Jersey John,
You're correct. Vinegar Joe, in terms of Generals, should be included. But just like McArthur, only for the Pacific Theater.
-
Interesting point about Fascism.
In todays world, the differences between Nazism and Fascism have blurred, and generally speaking, people consider them the same.
Back in the 30's, they were distinctly different ideas.
On-Topic...
The random modifier is a good idea, since it would help bring historical uncertainty and tension into the process.
-
John C
You're correct.
The current "vocal minority" are throwing out whatever idea pops into thier head. While some of the ideas have some merit, the majority are basically "chrome" and don't add any real value to SC2. While initially, some have tried to point out the problems with the suggestions, most simply don't bother anymore.
And for those of us who have been around for a few years here, we're discussing some of the same ideas that were brought up in the past.
Hence the lurker mode for most of us.
-
I'm slightly confused by some of the comments above.
Back in the 70's, it was referred to as the "Golden Age" of board wargaming.
Today, for all purposes might as well be called the "Renaissance Age" of board wargaming.
There are a large number of excellent boardgames available today, that far surpass any of the designs that were available in the past. In addition to these American designed wargames, you have Japanese wargames (with translations) and a staggering amount of Eurogames (though very few are what we would call wargames).
With Cyberboard (PBeM) and Vassal (TCP) Player Aids, along with Web based (Client/Server) games you have the entire world of wargamers available to play against.
There are very few computer games that can match the richness available in the current boardgames, and most of them are simply rip-offs of older boardgames.
If anything, the complaint should be that there isn't enought time to play games, not that you can't find opponents.
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss this, so if not, feel free to e-mail me and I'll point you in the right direction.
-
I'm not disputing that Hitler made efforts to get France to join the Axis. My point is that it would never had happened.
-
While I understand the reasoning behind what Edwin and JerseyJohn are attempting, I believe Blashy has stated a better approach.
What is being discussed is really more of an alternate history variant. If you're going go down that path, then start at a pre-WWII date.
That would give the freedom to explore the possibilities of an Socialist or even Communist France; the possibility of a Austrian-Hungarian "empire"; a constitutional monarchy or even a democracy in Germany; etc, etc.
But if we're dealing with what happend in real life, than instead of thinking in terms of France "joining" the Axis, I'd have to say you should be thinking in the opposite direction. With what Germany accomplished in France '40 (something totally beyond thier expectations), instead of what happened (which is more like an agreement to a cease fire), there should be a "conquest" option, where Vichy France isn't formed and Germany goes for the total conquest of the French Empire.
That would leave the North African and Middle East possesions up for graps, but more importantly, would let the Japanese have free reign regarding French possesions in the Pacific (mainly Fr IndoChina).
Thats a much more likely scenario than France becoming an Axis partner.
-
Look at the numbers that are cited above.
Then explain why submarines should be able to sink surface ships or other submarines in SC2.
Exceptions should not dictate the norm.
JJ, nope, didn't know that Japanese submarines did not have sonar. I do know that they had the best torpedoes when the war started and in general also misused submarines as supply ships, since they were the only ships the Japanese had that could get resupply isolated island garrisons.
-
Exel,
I'm not aware of any sub vs sub combats.
Even subs versus combat surface ships was very unlikely. Only the Japanese used thier submarines this way and its been critized by almost everyone.
Off the top of my head, I believe the Japanese record was something like two (2) DD type ships sunk and one (1) or two (2) larger ships damaged.
-
Edwin and JerseyJohn, your last few posts on the subject are exactly to the point.
One bit to add to this, which may help explain why the US was focused on the Phillipines and not Pearl Harbor.
The mindset of the top ranking military officers of the day, was that aircraft could not sink naval ships. So when the US military looked at a map of the Pacific, the Phillipines was threatned because of its position along the Japanese sea lanes and its close proximity to Little China (ie Fr IndoChina). Pearl Harbor was "safe" from the viewpoint that the Japanese couldn't get thier capital ships (ie battleships) there, nor was Japan in a position to do an amphib landing on Pearl. The Japanese carriers were not considered a threat, since they were great for recon value, but where a nothing more than a nuisance otherwise.
So when the Japanese struck Pearl, like all peacetime Generals or Admirals (who really are more politicians than warriors), the first thing they did was cover thier rear. Thats why you have reports that Short and Kimmel screwed up.
-
Edwin,Shaka of Carthage, what I am looking for is a historically possible way for the USA player to directly affect the conditions surrounding his entry into the war with diplomatic chits and to make the result somewhat unpredictable. Randomization of USA entry is already included in the game to a certain extent with Axis and UK actions affecting war readiness.The method I propose would allow the USA player to effect their entry into the war, to a limited extent (ie no later than Dec 1941) if they are willing to take a calculated risk.
Thus American entry into the war can be affected by British, Axis and American actions.
Thats exactly my point. There is no way for the US player to affect the US entry into the war, without you modeling the Japanese. Thats outside the scope of a ETO game. The actions of the British and Germans had little relevance to the Japanese.
You also didn't understand my reference to randomly determining when the US enters. What I was referring to was an addition to the method currently used in SC. Something that would expand the probabilities of an earlier entry (or an later entry).
-
JerseyJohn
Not sure if you mentioned China or not.
The US demands on Japan (in regards to China) were something the Japanese would never agree to.
-
Edwin, without disputing some of the mistaken conclusions you've drawn, all you really need is a system that randomly determines when the US enters the war. Thats it.
You don't let the players modify it, since those modifications really are only important to the Pacific Theater, not the European Theater.
Some cool features...
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Another reason, was the political structure of the Nazi government. It was run more like a feudal kingdom, than a modern government. You had Hitler at the top, and below him competing power brokers who ran various government departments. End result were projects that got funded not because they were the best, but they were championed by a political heavy, or they got lucky (right person at the right time).
Lastly, add to it Hitlers "distrust" of the professional military (one reason the Waffen SS was created in the first place), you ended up with amatuers making decisions regarding procurement and development.
Its one of the reasons, that any military professional who had Hitlers trust, was able to make so many "improvements" when placed in charge of certain projects. He could always play the "Hitler Card" and get what he needed.