Grand Strategy

[pzgndr]

Several recent topics have started to discuss strategy in Strategic Command. To throw a little gasoline on the fire here, below are some excepts from Don Greenwood's remarks in The Gamer's Guide to THIRD REICH:

In any given historical situation, there are a few elements which are the determining factors in the outcome. Game design has always sought to capture these historical elements, thus recreating the feel for the players. But if the historical result were the outcome of the game each time, then it would not be much of a game. Many have bemoaned the fact that "quirky" things happen in THIRD REICH. There is no quirkiness here, there are only players unwilling to adhere to sound strategies. The point is that in the game practically everything is left up to the players. The rules are no more than an agreed method of procedure and resolution of conflict. I would argue that this is the only way it can be. The alternative amounts to no more than an operational game system illegitimately expanded to the strategic scope. The game, having provided the parameters of what could happen, has done its job. If players wish to stray from the historical course to invade Sweden or Spain, who is to say that perhaps they aren't better Grand Strategists than Churchill or Stalin.

Different historical situations have different determining elements. World War II, because it was technological, was a war that depended on the industrial base and raw materials of its participants. Any strategic game of the great conflict, to be successful, must represent that element to recapture the past; like the great war photos, it conveys a feeling of a time when things were happening. So armor and airpower were deliberately made the most potent offensive forces and the playing area of the board was made as large as possible to permit the wide maneuver of such units. The fascination of the strategic game is its glimpse at the possible worlds there might have been - tempered by the realization of what happened - or might have happened - historically.

Ideally, any game should approach chess in the number of plausible winning strategies. Good players, as you will see in these pages, will analyze several different lines of play. For this reason alone, THIRD REICH can take some time to play. This characteristic of strategic games means that the developer should make the mechanics as simple as possible, while retaining the key "determining elements." This is the worn "playability versus realism" debate taken to a new level. Realism must perforce distinguish every factor, but is not that approach impossible at the strategic level of play? We could have added turn phases ad infinitum, but to little effect. In THIRD REICH, we chose to emphasize free choice in grand strategy and the economy of war. The resulting system reflects much about the dynamics of World War II, but the game has to be played extensively before these insights can be appreciated.

With very few changes, these same words written back in 1985 can be used to describe Strategic Command. More to come.

[Edwin P.]

Bill Macon

Excellent Post, hits the nail on the head.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Great and relevant intro; looking forward to the rest.

[disorder]

WARNING xxx DUPE POST

[ May 01, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: disorder ]

[disorder]

hate to just be the rubber stamp here, but

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! :cool:

[SeaWolf_48]

Thanks for the retro of a truely classic wargame. I guess my problem with SC is the mannor inwhich warfare is determined. In TR you knew what the odds would be when you attacked a ground unit.

e.g. four 3-4 units attacking a 3-4 unit on a plane hex in defense was 2 to 1 odds (gound unit was double on defense) you rolled the die and knew take you would get destroyed, exchange damage, destroy the unit or move the unit back one or two hexes.

In SC you attack a ground unit one to six times and hope to win. It's more subjective now, with many more factors to take into account. If I could attack the same unit with all six units at once you know you will win.

What I'm I asking.... I guess I would like to see the odds each time I attack. In the words of the King of Kings, "What King going out to encounter another King in war, will not sit down first and diliberate whether he is able with Ten Thousand to meet him who comes against him with Twenty Thousand?"

Does anyone else know what I'm talking about?

[Edwin P.]

The 300 Spartans?

[ May 01, 2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Right, agreed 100%, suggested it many times and have seen others suggest it many times but to no avail. My Thread on Expanded HQs has a lot written along those lines.

I like the COS method, where the same defending unit can receive a simultaneous attacked and individual attacts during the same turn.

The URL link below discusses this topic.

*Expanded HQ Roles: Stacking with Advance and Retreat after Combat.

[ May 02, 2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

It's more subjective now, with many more factors to take into account. What I'm I asking.... I guess I would like to see the odds each time I attack.

I miss this also. But with the power of the computer to model all of these interesting factors - strength, tech level, experience, entrenchment, terrain bonus, HQ bonus, supply, etc. - you necessarily have to give up "seeing the odds" and play a little more intuitively.

We do get the expected losses displayed prior to resolving combat. This allows players to orchestrate their battles. Are you just looking at obvious unit strength values or are you checking unit readiness values to see what your actual combat power is each turn. Who has HQ support and who doesn't? Do you attack first with air, armor, or infantry? Decisions like these make the game tactics interesting. And, players can take a perfectly good strategy and screw it up by charging ahead without considering all these factors.

There's pure wisdom in Don Greenwood's comments. I like the quote about keeping the game mechanics simple. Like 3R, SC does this well. There seems to be a concensus that air is a bit too powerful and armor not powerful enough, air ranges may be a bit too much, submarines not survivable enough, etc. A few very minor tweaks to the combat tables for SC2 could smooth out some of the rough edges without introducing any additional complexity. Other development work for SC2 - like a larger map, improved scenario editor, improved political model, and AI enhancements - should receive the lion's share of attention to make the game better, not different. The "key elements" of WWII and decent game mechanics are already in place and working fairly well. Let's build on that.

[SeaWolf_48]

Posting From Bill

There seems to be a concensus that air is a bit too powerful and armor not powerful enough, air ranges may be a bit too much, submarines not survivable enough, etc. A few very minor tweaks to the combat tables for SC2 could smooth out some of the rough edges without introducing any additional complexity. Other development work for SC2 - like a larger map, improved scenario editor, improved political model, and AI enhancements

Wow, Bill, you guys do listen! Can't wait, well, I can wait, but if you are going to make these changes, SC2 will become the best Strategy game to date.

To bad about the odds not being shown, but hay, can't have your wife and your girlfriend too!

[ May 02, 2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaWolf_48

To bad about the odds not being shown, but hay, can't have your wife and your girlfriend too!

Sure you can. The key is having your wife pick your girlfriend. That way, if there any problems, you can blame your wife.

[SeaWolf_48]

SHAKA behave yourself!

[JerseyJohn]

"Too bad about the odds not being shown, but hay, can't have your wife and your girlfriend too!"

-- SeaWolf

"Sure you can. The key is . . ."

-- Shaka

That's what distinguishes us from other wargamers, we discuss real warfare!

[ May 02, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To bad about the odds not being shown, but hay, can't have your wife and your girlfriend too!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure you can. The key is having your wife pick your girlfriend. That way, if there any problems, you can blame your wife.

lol

You guys are the die-hard wargaming type,they usually tend to be a bit boring some might say,but here you prove them wrong.

:eek: euh...

Well never mind me.

[Shaka of Carthage]

What can I say? I am only trying to impart some hard learned experience. :cool:

Anyone want some advice on how to get a stripper to go home with you?

[kurt88]

Keep a kitten in your Axis and Allies-box?

[pzgndr]

In Shaka's case, you can always tell a mustang - you just can't tell him much.

Now I recall days in my youth at the I-bar and Little Richard's down at Fort Benning where

[ editted by moderator ]

Now where did all that grand strategy go? See sticky above.

[Shaka of Carthage]

In Shaka's case, you can always tell a mustang - you just can't tell him much.

:cool:

[santabear]

Thanks to Bill for the excellent original post. In a realistic game the Allies WILL will every time. A game that allows for other outcomes will be "realistic" to the extent that it fits with the preconceptions of the player(s)--each of us has our unique "reality."

I for one prefer NOT to know all of the details behind the resolution of combat. When a commander orders an attack he should have a good idea of the outcome, but there is never a way to KNOW what will happen. One of the excellent things about SC is that the only way to learn some of the nuances about combat, supply and cetera is through hard-won experience. This approach is actually preferable to me than to introduce some kind of "dice roll" into the combat system.

[ May 04, 2003, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[Liam]

Another game I never hear much about is Storm Across Europe<released by SSI 1989<?>> It was and my first crack at WW2 simulator on a strategic level similar to High Command and SC. It was released for the Amiga back then so who knows, the graphics are better than both SC/Third Reich/& High Command. I was unlucky for I didn't have any real live oponents and at the time Command HQs was the only one you could get other's to play localy, shortly after the more tactical games SSI released in PBEM form... Eastern Front notably

AI gets boring, it does the same thing every time. It's good to have the diversity of living human oponents. Don't get me wrong invading Sweden or Spain may have been a much better decision for Germany than the ones she did make or launching Barbarossa instead of clearing Yugoslavia up for Italy...

There should be an extra random factor involved for such events though.. If you're to sway from history you should allow for the probability of history having not turned out the way it did.

We do know that Sweden/Spain/Switzerland/Turkey were highly prized for their neutrality. Any invasion of these nations would've set off people like Stalin<and the Russian Leadership> Similarly the American Leadership!

So would other actions taken by the Axis-Allies forces in Europe or otherwise. The game should adapt accordingly though still keep true to the fact it is a game and a delight... Just like I'm not going to make London worth twice what Berlin is to balance out a weakness for MPPs. Rather just place a city that isn't already on the map there and you really haven't done much to alter things...or edit in an easier way...

[Shaka of Carthage]

My experiences with Storm Across Europe were a little different. But my platform was a PC, which at the time was much inferior to Amiga when it came to the graphics.

Storm Across Europe appeared to be a copy of the boardgame Hitler's War. The PC interface was terrible, and the graphics for its day were acceptable. When Clash of Steel came out, Storm Across Europe went into the trash.

[SeaWolf_48]

From Santa Bear

I for one prefer NOT to know all of the details behind the resolution of combat. When a commander orders an attack he should have a good idea of the outcome, but there is never a way to KNOW what will happen. One of the excellent things about SC is that the only way to learn some of the nuances about combat, supply and cetera is through hard-won experience. This approach is actually preferable to me than to introduce some kind of "dice roll" into the combat system.

My approach to wargames is my history of board games which used dice and the calculation of the odds. Lots of PC wargames after that used the same system as a basis for starting their games. That is my point of reference. From that, like chess, I or possibly we have built our experience in wargaming. Attacking a position or unit with the best odds, best chance of winning, is the best way of generaling (is that a word). This is what I miss.

It seems to me that in WW2 Generals attacked the enemy at a weak point, or where they felt that they had superiority, or at the very least they knew that they could exchange man for man or machine for machine, attrition. Few attacked when thay didn't understand or know the odds (intellengence), unless in desperation. Also smart Generals used the least amount of men and material to get the task done, to minimize casualities. Of coarse sometimes you want overwelming odds to ensure victory (Normandy landing), and don't care about the waist.

As stated before, I miss knowing the odds or intellengence of my attacks. Or am I just paranoid!

[Liam]

Interesting Shaka, I had what was the equivelant of a 286 High Quality VGA and at least basic stereo sound.

It was all point and click interface and was indepth... The calculations,ease of play and detail outmatched SC and COS. SAE was very interesting for it's time I had to wait till COS to see something similar nearly 4 years later! It wasn't much more detailed or intense then SAE... I was rather dissappointed in that all the new technology couldn't breed a better Platform period...

Though the Amiga was a gamers machine and the IBM sucked terribly back then I had Wargames for that old 1986 designed puppy that outclassed today latest wargames in graphics, <even on sound> and almost on design of course you had meg or 2 Ram disability. Though the base still hasn't changed...

[santabear]

It seems to me that in WW2 Generals attacked the enemy at a weak point, or where they felt that they had superiority, or at the very least they knew that they could exchange man for man or machine for machine, attrition.

Agreed to the extent that they attacked the enemy at what the THOUGHT was a weak point. Operations were planned in great detail and every possibility was calculated (see the Hitler quote in my signature)

[SeaWolf_48]

Yes, SantaBear a.k.a. Odessabear.

As you have stated most General Staffs were experts in reading the signs of weakness of there enemies and trained to exploit them.

Hitler is quoted in your footnote as saying that he had calculated every possibility, but after Stalingrad he lost his nerve, and doubted his own judgments. Kurst and Tunis proves that. Hilter started to fear the Generals because he knew that his will didnot stop russian tanks, and his decisions caused disasters which made his Generals despise him even more. "Everyone is against me". I wonder why! It is amazing that no one would just walk up to him and blow his brains out! I've read that he said "No one has the guts to shoot me, I would be impressed if they would be a man, they are all afraid of me"! Everyone was afraid of him, it's ironic that Hitler as far as I know never killed anyone personally. His decision and orders are a different thing however.