New Campaign Suggestions

[Narayan Sengupta]

Hi Everyone,

What are some of the campaigns you would like to see designed?

Narayan

[Night]

The U.S. stay's neutral LoL

[JerseyJohn]

I think most of the historical scenarios using historical OOBs are already made and available and many of them, most notably those by Bill Macon, are about as well designed as anyone is going to make them. But hypothetical situations are a comparatively wide open area at the moment.

Some examples I've either developed or are currently looking are . . ..

The Brest-Litovsk Aftermath, which assumes WW I ended with a Western deadlock and a peace treaty in which Germany withdrew to the Rhine in exchange for acceptance of it's triumph over Russia. The result leaves Russia starting pretty much at the line Leningrad-Smolensk-Rostov in the resulting hypothetical 1939 War. I don't want to get too far into this for two reasons: (1) I've discussed it at length in other areas and (2) Despite having been available at Otto's for a few months, I've decided to give it an overhaul due to the unlikely situation that it appears too be too hard on the Axis!

The Z-Plan is another hypothetical. The subject has been extensively written up in other posts so I won't go into it here. Panzer39 and SeaMonkey are also making Z-Plan scenarios and both are different from my own, which demonstrates that a good alternate history idea can be successfully approached from a number of different angles.

Having the original version used in a tournament has helped me immensely in revising the idea. The idea for using new, experimental scenarios in an organized tournament was disorder's and I've to to admit it's a good one.

Two other hypothetical ideas I've been working on is The Expanded 1939 Fall Weiss -- used in an AAR game between disorder and myself -- in which the Royalists win the Spanish Civil War early on and become staunch allies of Britain and France, who assisted them heavily. The reason for this largely unhistorical Anglo-French assistance was a Nazi backed coup in Sweden during 1936. Shaken out of their complacency, the Western leaders understood they couldn't afford to have both, Scandinavia and Iberia turn Axis. When war breaks out in 1939 The Allies consist of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Iraq and Ireland. The Axis has Germany, Sweden and a strong initiative.

The second idea is for a Delayed Great War. As we know, CvM has gone through a lot of trouble to create a WW I scenario. It can only be played between two human players and, while I think he did a great job, I don't think the present game engine is right for that situation. However, suppose war hadn't broken out in 1914? What if it broke out later, same allignments, same situation, but with technologies further along? I figure tech levels would be very low. I'd give Britain L=1 gunlaying radar and Germany L=1 submarines, but that would be the extent of it.

I'm still working on this idea and anyone who cares to develop their version is encouraged to try it. The same is true of any other project I find myself working on.

The historical variants in this idea alone are huge. Would the old dynasties have held together almost half-way into the 20th Century? The Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians with their internal ethnic unrest and outside interests (England, France and Italy) seeking to politically divide and conquer. Could the Romanov Dynansty, with it's backwards, oppressive Czar Nicholas have gone through the twenties and into the thirties without losing his crown to revolution? And what would Imperial Germany have been doing all this time?

So that's the sort of subject matter I've been looking into. Others, principally CvM and Narayan have sought to extend the game system into the sixties and there's been movement in the opposite direction of creating pre-20th Century campaigns.

The Game system is pretty flexible and lends itself to imaginitive projects.

One of the advantages of hypothetical scenarios is the elimination of historical OOBs; this frees the designer somewhat and leaves him with the main concern of creating a balanced scenario (not one where everything adds up and is equal on turn one, but one where both sides have an equal chance for ultimate vicotory) within his self defined setting.

When activating countries like Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain, Greece, Denmark or Sweden it's a good idea to use the HISTORICAL setting for minor ally entry.

[Logan Hartke]

Okay, guys, this is a long one, but worth the time and containing a lot of detail...

One, which is admittedly difficult and, I'm sure, not new, is the 1945-1947 alternate WWII. Hitler has finally gotten approval of the Poland attack by his admirals and generals. They are sufficiently convinced of Germany's superiority in the land, sea, and air. Germany, obviously, would have made great strides in Gun Laying Radar, Rockets, Advanced Subs, Jet Aircraft Research, and Anti-Aircraft Radar researches, but would still very much be lacking in Long-Range Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, Industrial Technology, Anti-Tank, and (surprisingly to most) Heavy Tank research. Most good historians know that German tanks were on the slow track compared to their Soviet and French counterparts in the long run and the superlative German tank designs from WWII were largely triggered by events in the opening weeks of Operation Barbarossa. Also, Germany's Anti-tank weapons during WWII were largely a result of captured American bazooka technology and early war anti-tank experience, neither of which they would have in this scenario.

Britain, believing that she had control of the seas, would have relatively low naval research, but high levels in all aircraft fields (Jet Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, and Long-Range Aircraft). All tank and anti-tank research levels would be pitifully low, but Anti-Aircraft Radar would likely be level 5.

Russia, spurred by the power-hungry Stalin, who, for those of you that didn't know this, already had plans in the making for an invasion of Germany in the mid- to late-forties, would have incredibly high levels of research in all ground-based fields of weaponry and industry (i.e. Anti-tank, Heavy Tank, Rockets, and Industrial Technology). Russia would also have moderate levels of Jet Fighter research, but not much else in any other field. Russia, however, would likely have taken control of Finland and Iraq already and would likely be building up for an invasion of Turkey and possible passes at the Balkan states and the Scandanavian countries.

France would have surprisingly high levels of Gun Laying Radar, Jet Fighter, Anti-tank, and Heavy Tank research. For those of you that didn't know, France had far more powerful tanks on the drawing board than Germany had ever dreamed of when she was invaded in 1940, but these plans remained just that. Some plans, however, were built after the war and are still in service today. For those of you that didn't know, designs such as the ARL-44, AMX-13, and the Panhard EBR all had their very advanced and powerful designs rooted in 1940 plans (the EBR was even at mock-up stage in 1940). She would also have a VERY large standing army on the German border with VERY high entrenchment levels, but it would consist almost entirely of infantry armies with very few tanks. Her navy would be formidable, yet likely conquerable by the Italians. Industrial Technology would also be at nil since the French socialist factories had been a military and economic disaster since their inception.

The Italians, as usual would have low tech levels in most fields, but 3's in most naval and aerial fields. Like France, a goose egg in the Industrial Technology category would be accurate.

All the superpowers would be aligned the same way, but all would have FAR more troops and equipment. Soviet troop concentrations in ALL categories would be phenomenally higher with troops poised at the borders of most of its neighbors, ready for invasion. Germany would have nearly equal naval strength to Britain with an emphasis on advanced subs (Type XXI) and advanced superbattleships (Schlachtschiff H). The Kriegsmarine might have two carriers as well. While obviously possessing a larger army, I'd wager that it'd be no more than 200% the size of the 1940 army. It would just have a much larger navy and air force backing it. Italy would have a very large force aimed at the Balkans and a huge force in all areas of the Med.

I would expect the USSR to have a very high join percentage, but America might remain neutral altogether, comfortable in its complacency. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Sweden, and Norway would likely start off as Axis allies, feeling instantly threatened by Soviet expansionism. Switzerland, Denmark, and Spain might also be considered allies of Germany from the start, but they are a bit more iffy.

Overall, I would expect the war to play out much like a WWI where Russia would have been prepared and Italy would have remained allied with Germany. If the war goes like I think it should, Italy will take almost complete control of the Med within a year. Germany will destroy the RN fairly quickly, roll through the Low Countries and Poland and be successfully attacking France with considerable Italian support. Surprisingly, the Axis will likely control the waves for most of this scenario. German rockets will likely shower her enemies with destructive firepower.

All is not well for the Axis, however. The USSR is proving to be better-prepared than expected. Germany will have to rapidly try to hold back the Red Army while still attempting to deliver a knock-out blow to France. The USSR will be trying to drive down into Africa through Iraq. Mother Russia will likely wrest control of Scandanavia within the first year or two, endangering the German control of the High Seas. She will likely be making headway in Turkey, longing to sink her teeth into the Med through the Bosporus.

While the Kriegsmarine might have eliminated the Royal Navy, the British long range heavy bombers are on the prowl and looking for revenge. Operating from Great Britain and Soviet bases on the Baltic and the Med, her massive bomber fleet will likely sweep the seas of Axis ships within 2-3 years if not sooner. The seas will become a barren graveyard, no Axis ship venturing out of range of considerable German Jet fighter support (yet the lack of tech in long-range fighters will prevent any ships from going far).

The Axis will likely be fighting a losing battle that will be decided in France and Poland. Although she'll have many allies, the poorly-equipped minor nations will be little more than experience for the Soviet war machine, gobbling up armies left and right. Germany's only chance is to set up on wall on her eastern border, then decimate the Red Army with the Luftwaffe in a veritable meat grinder (the Red Air Force being lacking in both aircraft numbers and jet technology).

If the French can hold out (which they shouldn't be able to do), they can wait for British air power to arrive then allow the Germans to bash their head in on French defensive networks while the Anglo Airmen fly cover for them. If the Western Allies play it safe and stem the German land forces, yet keep from squandering the considerable Red Army early on, they should win without much difficulty (although, at first, the naval situation will appear depressing and hopeless).

By contrast, the German player has to be bold, quick, and decisive in attacking in the West, yet without too much of a manpower expenditure. Use whatever meager ground forces that are at hand in the East and delay the Soviets as long as possible, whenever possible. Airpower will be decisive in the East, so don't throw it away in the West, yet keep enough in the West to keep the RAF from doing the same thing to the Heer as the Luftwaffe plans to do to the Reds. If balanced well enough, this would be a complex, yet very fun scenario with many new and inventive strategies.

Logan Hartke

(All I did in the post, for thsoe who might have aready read it, was divide it up into paragraph-sized chunks which should make it easier to read through without losing one's place.)

[ July 29, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Logan Hartke ]

[Night]

My Scenario that I'm working on...

The year is 2010, and the world is a much differnt place. Post Sept. 11th military build-ups by the United States cause concern in the strengthening European Union. NATO is disolved following esp. high tention between France and Germany against the United States. Russia suffers the worst depression in it's history, and hardliners from the old Soviet Governtment use the opportunity to place the blame on the west and it's lack of promised help. Tension in the Middle East is reaching it's boiling point as Islamic rebels in Turkey Seize half the country and Turkey is plunged into Civil War. Iraq's government, having all it's U.S. troops and goverment aid workers removed, is left open for a fundementilist takeover, which takes place early in the year. Israel, realizing the danger of having a fully Islamic Controled Turkey, as well as a reborn anti-Israel Iraq, deploy's it's forces to halt the Muslim build-ups in these countries. Syria and Eygpt do not take this lighty, and demand Israel stay out of the event's, they show the world they mean business late in January with massive military build-ups in the region. The United States deploy's it's powerful fleet, and makes plans for ground troops the following Spring, soon it announces any attack on Israel will be met with force from the United States. The leaders of the European Union, which has allowed it self to be filled with anti-american sentimiate and hate, use this as an excuse to Challenge the United States and it's one true ally in England. When it become's apparent the U.S. does not take the European Union seriously, and believes it is crazy to think that Europe would fight the United States. The stage is set for a clash of power never before felt on the planet.

Hostilities erupt in May of that year. The combined forces of the newly created Arab Defence League attack Israel forces on all fronts, and move troops into Turkey to crush the last of the old government's resistence. The U.S. fleet responds quickly, only to realize to late that the European's have other plans for the region... Most of Europe declares war on the Unitied States, which is now backed by only England and a few minor nations.

Can the European Union Destroy American Military Power in the Middle east and allow the capture of Israel? Will the United States lose it's Super Power Status to the new power in the world?

Germany will play the part of the Combined European Union, incompasing France, Germany, Low Countries, Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Denmark, and Italy. Italy will play the part of the Arab Defence League, made up of Eygpt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the Eastern half of Turkey. The United States will play itself, Isael, and Free Western Turkey. The U.K. will play itself, with Yugosolvia as an Allied Minor due to the pro-western government placed after the Kosovo Campain in the late 90s.

The U.S./Israel forces will have a signifigant advantage in Experience and in some cases Technology to reflect the better training and equipment over the arab forces, as well as the battle experience that the U.S. has in many the many small and some big conflicts it has recently fought, plus the numerous War Games and training. The distinct advantage of the US will be it's naval power, although not totally dominant, it should be able to prevale if it fights carefully on the seas. The EU has the advantage truely in the respect of it's number's and strong financal backing, however it start's much less ready for a ground fight, and has to build much from stratch. The Arab Forces will have the number advantage on the Israelis, but should find it difficult to defeat them. I have also given the Arabs some Rocket's with higher tech level's to simulate the many ballistic missles held by these countries in real life.

[ July 29, 2003, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Night ]

[Logan Hartke]

Sounds neat, Night, but there are a few things that you are forgetting. First of all, Russia and the EU are not really allies. Russia is pretty darn close to a wild card, that might actually sign with the US, realizing that the US will not be overrun, and therefore using this as an opportunity to have the US support its economy. Secondly, there is no good way to represent the naval disparity in the game. You'd need level-5 subs to represent US Seawolf class subs and, by comparison, level-0 subs at a starting strength of 4 to represent Swedish subs, German subs, etc. The class 201-212 of German-built and designed subs are good diesel boats, but a Seawolf could destroy 10 before worrying about anything. Similarly, there is no way to represent the US seismic detectors on the Atlantic. By rights, the US would have complete intel on every enemy ship in the water. Also, American nuclear subs and carriers should not decrease in readiness. They have nuclear reactors. What, are they going to run out of fuel? Also, how would you represent US stealth aircraft or the US ability to launch B-2s from Missouri, hit Afghanistan then come back to MO w/o landing anywhere along the way. How would the inabilty of the Germans and Italians to build fighters like the Typhoon w/o the Brits be represented? How would the world's best intel unit, the Mossad be shown? They've hit and destroyed Iraqi nuclear reactors in France w/o getting caught. The discrepency in experience, competence, and readiness of Israeli troops compared to Arab troops could only be represented by the highest level heavy tanks and anti-tank weapons with level-4 experience, full supply, and full entrenchment. Also, Israeli has shown that it will use nuclear weapons if it feels that the country may not survive. How will that be represented? Sub-launched Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles cannot be shown in the game. By all rights, a US Los Angeles-class sub can hit Berlin from the Baltic. To represent the destructive firepower of US carriers, you'd have to put together 5 level-5 carriers together to represent one battlegroup, not to mention other screening ships. Also, the ability of Americans to land an entire corp behid enemy lines, then TANKS to support them cannot be represented in the game. Honestly, Night, I love the idea in a game, but you just can't do it, especially with this engine. Also, I've been part of a couple of military forums for years. One of the forum's regular posters is a retired US military analyst and former US Airborne LRRP Vietnam War veteran. He's proven it, too. The rest of the posters have all shown me their competence in military research. We looked at a scenario like this in a number of threads such as "EU vs. USA." Finally, we came to the conclusion that if all of Europe, including the UK teamed up against the US, Europe's conventional forces as cohesive units would be liquidated within weeks. All European airpower and seapower would be gone within days. Remember, this is including the UK in the EU! The only two options left would be nuclear war or guerilla warfare. Neither of them can be accurately represented in this game, so it cannot be played. Obviously, you can just do this for fun, but the outcome will be about as historical as the movie "The Battle of the Bulge." Like I said, make it if you want, but the only way to have a near-accurate outcome is to flood the game with American units, especially naval, make them all high tech and high experience. All enemy units would need to be under-strength in comparison. One might argue that that is inaccurate since the Leopard 2 is pretty darn close to the same thing as an Abrams. This might be true, but the tank icons represent whole armies. No army in the world can match, has ever matched, nor will it ever match the US supply system. All secondary and support units would contribute a tremendous margin to American units, not to mention recently upgraded US communications. Also, Germany is sick of war. They won't even fight the French anymore, so why would they declare all out war on the US? That's suicide if nothing else. If something on this scale ever happened, it would only end in MAD, and that's no fun to play. So, again, I stress, you can just do this for fun, but the outcome will be about as historical as the movie "The Battle of the Bulge."

Logan Hartke

[Comrade Trapp]

Logan Hartke

While I agree that it would be hard to make that kind of campaign with the SC game engine, I think you overestimate the superiorty of US forces.

Posted by Logan Hartke: The class 201-212 of German-built and designed subs are good diesel boats, but a Seawolf could destroy 10 before worrying about anything.

My uncle has the good fortune of being in command of one of the Seawolf class attack boats (USS Seawolf - SSN 21) and while they are some of the best subs in the world they are still vulnerable just like any other sub. The problem with the Seawolf class is that there so damn expensive that they can't be mass produced like the Los Angeles class (688I). As of right now we only have 3 Seawolf class attack boats in operation.

You also underestimate the diesel subs of EU countries such as Germany, France, and UK. Diesel boats run dead quite when running on battery power and with the current sub batterys used by EU contries, these diesels subs could run on battery power for a long time and match our 688Is in sub to sub combat. Even today, older diesel subs like the Russian Kilo class attack boat could pose a serious threat when used right.

While I disagree with alot of the points you made, I don't have the time right now to type a long post. I will leave another post later today.

I will end with this, there would be no way we would be able to win in a full-scale war against the EU. If you truly believe that we can then you know nothing about military tactis.

Comrade Trapp

[ July 29, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Comrade Trapp ]

[SpitfireMarkX]

Don't forget ASW choppers and planes, those are probably a way bigger threat then any 201 type German sub, and I imagine if Russia is in a depression, Europe would have no problem buying Akula's and Typhoons, which would be one match with a LA, Virginia, or Seawolf class sub.

[Logan Hartke]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

My uncle has the good fortune of being in command of one of the Seawolf class attack boats (USS Seawolf - SSN 21) and while they are some of the best subs in the world they are still vulnerable just like any other sub. The problem with the Seawolf class is that there so damn expensive that they can't be mass produced like the Los Angeles class (688I). As of right now we only have 3 Seawolf class attack boats in operation.

I am fully aware of all of those things. I didn't believe that the Seawolf is invincible, and I also knew that it isn't slated for continued production. The Virginia class of SSNs, nearly as capable as the Seawolf, is soon to enter service.

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

You also underestimate the diesel subs of EU countries such as Germany, France, and UK. Diesel boats run dead quite when running on battery power and with the current sub batterys used by EU contries, these diesels subs could run on battery power for a long time and match our 688Is in sub to sub combat. Even today, older diesel subs like the Russian Kilo class attack boat could pose a serious threat when used right.

Ummm, you need to do your research, Comrade. France and the UK have no diesel subs and Germany only has coastal diesels. The U31 was recently completed, but is still on trials and will not delivered until March of 2004. Also, now HDW (the builders) is controlled by an American company. The American Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virigina-class SSNs can dive deeper, travel faster, travel farther, move more quietly, and detect better than any German-built diesel and most other diesels out there. The Seawolf moving at "silent" speed still moves at 20kts while the 212 moving at 20kts is doing flank speed and making a lot more noise doing so. Also, American submariners have exponentially more experience than European submariners due to Cold War lessons.

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

I will end with this, there would be no way we would be able to win in a full-scale war against the EU. If you truly believe that we can then you know nothing about military tactis.

Well, I'm convinced. That statement intimidated me right out of the thread. Oh come on. The USN has the best DDGs, SSBNs, SSNs, CVNs, and naval aircraft. How could the EU possibly win? They'd never gain control of the ocean. All major ports would soon be destroyed by US bombers, CVN-launched planes, and SSN-launched cruise missiles. The few subs and ships that might escape and not be blasted in port would soon be without options. Being diesels, they can't stay out forever...

Logan Hartke

BTW-Just to give you a bit of advice on tactics, it's got two C's.

[Logan Hartke]

Originally posted by Brad T.:

Don't forget ASW choppers and planes, those are probably a way bigger threat then any 201 type German sub,

As far as European ASW warfare goes, I am honestly LOL when I think about them. Do you knwo what rotor blades do on radar screens? They say "Look, I'm a big slow target. Come shoot me." American Tomcats and Hornets would be happy to oblige. So, basically, all EU helicopters can be figured out of the equation when they're not operating within 100 miles or so of the European coastline. So, that leaves us with what? Two types of aircraft (assuming the UK sides with the US) that are the elderly, slow Atlantique and the exported Orion. The Americans know how to combat and evade Orions. Why? They built them. As for the Atlantiques, they have about as much chance as a Sea King, except that they can go farther out to sea, but in this case, that only brigns them closer to the hunters.

Originally posted by Brad T.:

I imagine if Russia is in a depression, Europe would have no problem buying Akula's and Typhoons, which would be one match with a LA, Virginia, or Seawolf class sub.

First of all, all but three Typhoons are in some stage of scrapping, and one of those three is just a trials boat. Secondly, it would drain the treasuries of most EU nations to even bring one Typhoon into their navy. Thirdly, assuming by some miracle they manage to get one into service (after a few years) they are well known to the US and very noisy. The reactors of a Typhoon were emptied by experts in that field. They were American experts. Americans know Typhoons, inside and out. The Akulas are far better suited to the anti-sub duty. They would pose a much greater threat, but still are not up to even the Los Angeles's standards, so comparing it to the Seawolf is just plain absurd.

...and I quote...

The noise level of the Virginia is equal to that of the US Navy Seawolf, SSN 21, with a lower acoustic signature than the Russian Improved Akula Class and Russian Fourth Generation Attack Submarines. To achieve this low acoustic signature, the Virginia incorporates newly designed anechoic coatings, isolated deck structures and a new design of propulsor.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/index.html

So, even the best the EU nations might have or buy wouldn't get them far. Also, where EU helicopters have to watch out for US carrier planes and Aegis cruisers, American ASW aircraft don't have that problem. Akula, meet the Viking/Orion/Sea Hawk/oh, well, you get the point.

Logan Hartke

[SpitfireMarkX]

There are P-3's AKA Arora-130 (I think) in European service, and I doubt Naval carrriers being able to take the skies over coastal Europe.

I am working on one for the Yom Kippur War, I need your unit mod though Narayan. Could you get it for me?

[Logan Hartke]

Oh, yeah. No problem. I can easily do that. That would be neat. I've always loved reading about Israel's wars. Do you want me to e-mail you my 1962 icons?

Logan Hartke

[SpitfireMarkX]

They have Germans, looking like the Soviets right? If so e-mail it please. sports_stuff_alberta@hotmail.com

[Night]

Don't forget this takes place in 2010, assuming the EU has been building it's military for future conflict anywhere. Israeli and American Tanks have lvl 5 while Arabs have lvl 4. There is a large number of older Russin ships I put in as well as other nation's navies figured in, while I still don't think they can match the U.S. in-game, they can put up a fight. In order to represent the U.S. surface supremcy over other navy's, I have given them lvl 3 gunnery radar, and most other lvl 1. The carrier group's I put together Generaly consist of 1 Carrier, 2 Crusiers and a sub, One has a battleship replacing a crusier. Any lack of American numbers can simply be explained by adding to the story line. What if N. Korea made a move against the South? Possibly even if China joined in. The U.S. would obviously have to keep a very large number of ships and men in the Pacific.

[SpitfireMarkX]

Does someone have US OOB's for about 73, specifically what units were there, this would be great, for any nation too.

[Logan Hartke]

Brad, did you get my e-mail? I got two error messages when I tried e-mailing the file to you with a vague description of the problem being caused by a "fatal and permanent error" with your e-mail. I'll try again if my first couple of attempts were unsuccessful.

Logan Hartke

[SpitfireMarkX]

Sure did, thanks, now, anyone got map mods?

[Narayan Sengupta]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Z-Plan is another hypothetical... The second idea is for a Delayed Great War. As we know, CvM has gone through a lot of trouble to create a WW I scenario.

JerseyJohn,

Lots of great ideas. I am currently working on a WWI campaign (once again, the great Carl Von Mannerheim beat me to it! ) with new WWI icons thanks to Logan!

Night,

Have you seen my Bite of the Bulldog campaign? The US is neutral.

Narayan

[Narayan Sengupta]

Logan,

I like your idea very much and would enjoy possibly collaborating on that one as well if you wish.

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Narayan

Good Luck with your WW I ideas and glad you like those ideas I posted.

CvM, Comrade Trapp and myself discussed the WW I idea and problems quite a bit when the scenario was first announced. I think CvM did a great job of it within the existing game system but basically I don't think it's really feasable using this particular scenario editor.

The same with regard to the ideas for much later War scenarios; I admire the way the game is being utilized toward these goals but haven't commented because I can't see a way of doing it justice with the present scenario editor.

To me this editor is pretty valid for the period of roughly 1935 -- 1948, when electronics were first emerging and jet aircraft was in it's infancy.

We've had earlier threads asking Hubert to expand the game editor. I think it could be made truly universal if there were, say, fifteen or twenty tech levels, with units like cavalry starting at tech L=0 and peaking at L=9 at which point it becomes tank research for 10 thru 20. Using this sort of system, in a greatly expanded format, I think the same iditor could be used for wars ranging from ancient times to the space age. But it would need work, of course. If it goes that far, a full map generator should also be included and in the end it would probably be marketed as a separate product, which I don't think most of us would mind, provided it was designed well enough.

[Narayan Sengupta]

JerseyJohn,

I re-read this topic, and decided that I couldn't figure out WHY you felt that SC wouldn't handle WWI? I suspect that this is something that you have covered elsewhere in the 106 or 107 pages of topics here, but I'm on dial-up...

Can you please explain what you have in mind?

The things I have found a bit hard to model are:

Generals*

Austria-Hungary

Starting American units*

But that's about it so far. But the ones with "*" are always issues.

Narayan

[JerseyJohn]

Narayan

The three areas you mention are among the obstacles.

CvM's scenario had two main tests on the forum, one was CvM vs Brad and the other was Comrade Trapp vs myself. Both were written up as AARs. Both games were enjoyable enough in playing terms but the first ended with a tremendous Axis triumph and the second was irreversably heading that way when I became disgusted and stopped playing. I have to add I wasn't disgusted with Comrade, I think we were both enjoying the game, but I felt as though I were playing according to a prearranged script, like moving along a track.

Some of the problems, to my mind, are:

The participating countries lack individual features. The Central Powers perform on the German level even though Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire performed on a significantly lower level. Russia seemed doomed even if it only used it's huge army to hold it's own territory and solidify it's postition. Historically the quick Russian defeats were because the gave in to French pressure and spent almost no time in mobilization.

Italy can not be assigned to the Allies, so it was made UK territory; the problem with this is units then need to be built only in the UK and transported to Italy, consuming time and expense.

The Central Powers literally centralized position took on unrealistic and exaggerated importance as German units could be operated to the Middle East in a single turn while Allied units were only able to get there via sea travel, taking much more time and, once again incurring a great deal of additional expense. By the time they'd get there they'd be blocked in amphibious landings by German units operated adjacent to the target city the very turn that the Allied units appeared.

Armor does not equal cavalry, it seems like a good idea but just doesn't work.

Representing the Balkans turned out to be unfeasable, so there isn't a front there, only Central Powers cities and territory.

There were numerous other factors. CvM did a very dedicated and imaginative job and plugged away at it in revisions. The four players did their best to compensate with reasonable house rules, but somehow the game system felt wrong at every turn. I suggest you try a couple of games with an opponent, playing one game as Central and the other as Entente; perhaps you'll come away with a different opinion than I did.

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something here. I still feel the scenario comes annoyingly close and would be pleased to find out the idea really does work.

I was on CvM's side from the start on the project and, as I've said a dozen times, I think he's brought the idea as close as it can go with the present game system.

[ July 31, 2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Narayan Sengupta]

What do you all think about an Italian campaign (just for kicks) where Italy is the strong power within the Axis? The Italian geography lends itself better to a fun defensive campaign.

I think it would be fun.

Narayan