deanco Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 I was reading about this game, Master of Orion 3, and I came across an interview with the designer, Alan Emrich. He talked a little about the concept of Imperial Focus in the game, and I am gonna quote the design related aspects of part of that interview here, and leave out the stuff specific to MOO3, since it's not relevant. ---------------- Imperial Focus is the Leader’s ability to get things done during a single one-to-two year Game Turn. During a turn a Leader can only focus on so many issues. To simulate this, each player has only so much Imperial Focus each turn. With it, he or she reviews the current standing orders throughout the Empire and spends Imperial Focus Points (IFPs) only when he or she wants to change the status quo. With Imperial Focus, the player can choose to do anything but cannot do everything. Imperial Focus offers several design advantages. In addition to keeping players properly focused on their role, it will also help keep turns moving along. This will be a great asset to those who enjoy multi-player play and even solitaire players who want to spend hours rather than days to see the end of the game. Imperial Focus is also a malleable number. Certain races, Events, Leaders, etc. can increase or decrease a player’s available Imperial Focus Points. It adds play balance, too, as the best overall manager has the edge each turn, not just the most time-taking, horrendously optimizing micro-manager. Everything is important, but you can’t do everything, so the best players are those who can deduce which things are the most important in their current circumstances. I believe it takes far more skill to do that than to do rote micro-management in an effort to achieve a tiny bit of optimization. ----------------- Now, I'm wondering if this concept could be applied to command and control problems on a WWII battlefield. I am not advocating it per se, I'm just throwing out this idea to bat around a bit if you feel like it. Of course the WEGO system already operates a little like Imperial Focus in that you can't be constantly babying your troops. I guess the application of it in CM2 would be a limit to the number and kinds of orders you could give in any one turn. Anyway, I read it and thought of CM2 right away so I'm posting it, voilà. Expert and not so expert opinions welcome. ------------------ DeanCo-- CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/ so many games...so little time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 Interesting idea. One possible application might be the inability to issue orders to units not in command control. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 I can't remember the game now, but there was an old board game, probably Avalon Hill, definitely involving the Russians, where the players, or maybe just the Russian player, had a leadership number of some sort that controlled the number of units (or maybe stacks or hexes) he could control. So the Sov. player might be defending against a German attack where the German has 50 units. The Russian player has, say 75 units, but due to control considerations, can only move maybe 10 per turn. The other units will defend themselves, and maybe they can attack if they are in the second round of a battle, but they can't move around. Does anyone remember this game? I think it had about the scale and location of Panzergruppe Guderian, but I don't *think* that it was PG (although it might have been). I'm also probably really off on the number of units the sov. player could move per turn. I also don't remember if the number changed as the game went on. Maybe it was random. I thought it was a very simple way of modeling a complex phenomenon, and the results seemed historical. Also, despite the fact that this was essentially a limitation on the Russian player, it really put the pressure on the German player because if the Russian figured out the likely German area of attack, the Russian could put defensive troops there and not have to worry about moving them. This forced the German player, who was outnumbered significantly in the actual numbers of counters on the board, to be innovative and attack in unpredictable places simply to take advantage of the fact that the Russian response would be sluggish. If the German didn't take advantage of the fact that he had C&C over all of his troops, he would be ground down and overwhelmed by the Russian forces. I don't think that CM2 should adopt this particular C&C mechanism, of course; the scale is too small for it to be realistic (although the mechanism needn't be limited to Russian forces exclusively, either -- particularly during the early part of the Bulge, there were American units that didn't get orders from HQ because HQ didn't know where these units were, or if they still existed. This didn't stop the units from fighting effectively if they happened to be in a village that the Germans attacked, although it of course prevented them from being moved to a different, and perhaps strategically more important village). Having a longish delay for out-of-command units in CM would simulate some of the effects described above, though. If soviet units are sent out of C&C to defend a particular crossroads, and it so happens that the Germans want that crossroads, being out of C&C won't hurt the soviet troops at all. It's only when the battle plans change on the fly the being out of C&C (or, more accurately, being out of "strategic" C&C, if there is such a thing) is harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barrold713 Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 This concept was implemented in the "Great Battles" series a few years back. For anyone not familiar with these games, there was three in the series and they dealt with the battles of Alexander, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar. I thought they were pretty well done and interesting to play. Each leader was given a number of initiative points correllating with their abilities. The best leaders such as Alexander or Julius Caesar had the most points and were able to exercise the most control over units within his command radius. Subordinate leaders had fewer points and could also order units under their command but paid an additional cost to order a unit outside of their command. For example, Alexander could order any unit in his army as long as he was within his command range at the cost of one initiative point. A subordinate leader (naturally with a smaller command radius), could order his own troops at normal point cost, but ordering a unit under another general would cost twice as many points. Before CM I liked to occasionally pull out one of these games. War elephants were just fun to play with. ------------------ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 isn't this done to a smaller extent with the tcp timer? set low you really have to haul butt and a few units always get left behind(in my first game i forgot a mmg from setup for ten turns even after i saw it after five of those turns) ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted March 5, 2001 Author Share Posted March 5, 2001 Bottom of page 3 already...hmmm. Guess nobody cares. I'll bet if some grog type had posted this same thing there'd be 50 answers by now. Amazing too is that a Gunny Bunny post gets 150 responses, while a real discussion about how to implement limited C&C in CM2 goes nowhere...... BTW I tried to answer you, russellmz, but the board ate my long post. That's the first time that's happened. Anyway, last bump, I guess I didn't criticize BTS enough. (edit) Forgot to add, thanks to those who did post. I learned that this same technique has been used in other wargames to good advantage, so this idea is not completely off the wall. ------------------ DeanCo-- CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/ so many games...so little time [This message has been edited by deanco (edited 03-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts