When is strategically important, inescapable?

[justanotherwargamer1]

Pity there is no "SC General Discussions" for just this series of games. No, the idea of putting "general" commentary in this sites actual General Discussions is so utterly laughable, I'll just ignore that suggestion if offered.

I'm picking the Pacific Theatre forum, because at the moment, it's about the limit of my attention.

I'm mostly responding to some thinking that I think I can credit to Rambo. Possibly Kuni as well.

The Seebees for instance.

I can recognize the difficulty inherent in making a counter for a formation that could never justify a counter. It's not that the counter lacks strategic importance, no, it's that the counter would be putting all of the eggs in one basket, a condition that would never be possible.

But here's the snag. This is a strategic simulation, and the Seebees were of considerable strategic importance. No Seebees equals a game missing a major element. Miss enough major elements, and you have a simulation that isn't simulating.

The trick is how to represent an element, without need for a "counter" to represent it.

Use too many counters to represent too many aspects where a counter is of no capacity to represent the element, and you accomplish nothing.

This harkens back to my complaint about subs.

It was the silent service for many reasons. Sadly while was it WAS important, but it wasn't very visible. Giving the US sub counters in a game at this scale, is basically stupid, and invalidates the games credibility. The US sub force was critical to the war in the Pacific, as critical as Uboats in the Atlantic. And you didn't get to see them do their thing. They weren't in any famous battles. Well if they were, you won't see them participating directly.

Thus having those subs appear in the game will be a mark against the game.

Coral sea, where were they?

Midway, where were they?

The Turkey Shoot where were they?

This list could go on for several more famous battles.

I've been recently reading a book on the early years of the air war portion of the conflict in the Pacific. And not just the US portion dating from Pearl Harbour.

Good luck representing this part of the war with conventional unit counters when in a lot of cases the forces involved were small portions spread out over a very large area. Is the solution to use unit counters that are on their last legs just to make them seem small enough acceptable?

Possibly.

It's not like the player gains a great advantage owning 10x 1 strength fighter units instead of a 10 strength fighter unit. And the player isn't forced to decide where to unrealistically dump an entire fighter force that would have been spread over thousands of miles of responsibility.

I remember reading of events from the war, and wondering, well, how do you recreate that?

The Raid on St Nazaire really happened. The Germans really DID lose that dry dock. It really DID alter their strategic resources. And it only took one ship loaded to hell and gone with explosives to accomplish that task, plus the commandos to see to it that ship got that chance.

That's strategic events, that if just unilaterally ignored, make it possible to wreck a lot of a sides needs to garrison occupied territory. But how does the game accomplish garrison duty?

1 counter can represent enough men to garrison all of the beaches Northern France, but you can't place that one counter on each location of Northern France.

In the Pacific, it will be the trouble of how to represent the Japanese garrisoning many Islands with a single counter, and not being forced to pick just one island to actually protect.

If the game plays incorrectly, then the "strategy" will have nothing in common with the real war, and our strategies will never need cope with real world concerns, and all the accuracy arguments will be really quite pointless.

Who knows, this might be part and parcel of why "good" grand strategy games are few and far between. It's pointless to spend a lot of energy coding a computer wargame about an event, if the game is not able to recreate the event in the first place.

[SeaMonkey]

Maybe its not so important to recreate the actual event, but the effect, as long as the players' ingame decision making is a catalyst for "the effect".

[Kuniworth]

Hey Justanotherwargamer, never read Enrights book "Shinano"?

There you have a great battle, sinking of the super-carrier

[justanotherwargamer1]

Maybe its not so important to recreate the actual event, but the effect, as long as the players' ingame decision making is a catalyst for "the effect".

That's way to vague, could you be a bit more specific?

[SeaMonkey]

My point exactly, grand strategy doesn't allow a lot of specifics.

[SeaMonkey]

OK Les, I'll bite. Take your CBs example, what did they do? They made an infrastructure in a place where one didn't exist, at least to the capacity for the designated mission.

So, you land on an island that has been neutralized by your forces and lets say by SC definitions that island's efficiency(port,village,etc) has been reduced to 0%, ie. everything was destroyed.

Now through the game engine, they slowly start to recover(CBs at work) a certain % efficiency every game turn until they reach a threshold which will accomodate more forces other than the initially landed unit. (you can't operate an air unit in, dock a naval unit, start a convoy, etc. until it reaches say 50%). The "effect".

[justanotherwargamer1]

Fair enough (good response).

I am not saying that is not in the game (of course I'm not, I don't have the game ).

But I do see this problem in games on occasion where the effect isn't present in any identifiable fashion.

Rambo is looking for Seebees as a unit (I think), I can't support that, no way to make it a viable counter. Those units were maybe a lot of men if you put the whole lot of them in one room from the entire theatre.

Now to beat the sub idea to death, why not make subs no less an effect.

In A3R (which isn't perfect by the way), subs were a simulated effect. And if the allies refused to match that simulated effect with ASW, the allies suffered losses economically. No counters were employed in the unit on the board sense of the word.

If the US pushes for more subs in the Pacific, the Japanese should suffer an increase in impact on resources reduction. Of course the fact that the Japanese didn't seem to do anything to counter the subs means the Japanese don't really get much of a means to respond. Japanese cultural thinking at the time sure was weird on the war.

[stoat]

Fair enough (good response).

Of course the fact that the Japanese didn't seem to do anything to counter the subs means the Japanese don't really get much of a means to respond.

Not true in the least. The Japanese undertook a lot of measures later in the war ('43 on) that the Allies had done slightly earlier. They began to organize convoys, they ensured all ships were escorted, they detailed fleet destroyers to convoy escort, they began a concerted corvette building campaign, they introduced larger spread and more effective ASW air patrols, they put radar in their planes, and they even took an additional step; that of laying large minefields to create barriers to keep Allied submarines out of large patches of ocean. Most of these measures were countered with new tactics and technologies, such as the wolfpack, the "hell's bells" mine locator, and orders to target Japanese escort ships, a doctrine initiated by USS Harder. I would suggest reading Bowfin or The Last Patrol to gain a better understanding of the constantly changing war between Allied subs and Japanese surface and air forces.

[arado234]

justanotherwargamer1 it sounds like what you are trying to say is that there is no real point to any strategic war game.If you do make it to realistic then the Allies should win everytime as long as they dont make any of the historical blunders .They grossly outproduce the Axis.They have the atom bomb.Cant loose.

I think this series of games is setup in such a way to be playable(without taking forever to play one turn nevermind a whole game)and still have some sort of realism.Plus the Axis still have a good chance to win,otherwise why play if you already know the outcome.

I beleive Blashy has a mod that sets the Allies Ind. might at realistic values and America right from the Start is prettywell out producing all the Axis powers combined.Since the Brits. already know before the game even starts that America and Russia will be joining her side(in reality the British had no idea that both countries Russia in particular would join her)and can plan accordingly.Right away one of the most important historical events of WW2 cant be simulated in ANY WW2 game(who is going to help the British and when).So looking at it from this point of view some things have to be omitted and somethings added to make the game(s)playable.

I think that the SC series of games have done the very best in creating WW2 games that are VERY fun to play(which is what its all about)without going to much off the deep end with to many "extras and whatifs".

[justanotherwargamer1]

Arado, alas there ARE some truths in wargaming.

One truth is the closer you get to squad tactical, the easier it is to make the game

That likely explains why the closer you get to squad tactical, the more games actually exist.

I have to say though, no level is easier to make an AI for.

It's not that there's no point, but, at grand strategy level, you can't always rely on a counter to be realistic at the design level. The problem being, as I see it, is a lot of wargamers seem to loathe abstractions until they are fully explained why the abstraction exists, and what it is abstracting.

I might be using too few resources on my comment about the Japanese subs. But regardless, the sub war would still be best done as an abstraction.

Now the Admiral Leader effect is a good notion. I like that one.

But at the grand strategy level, if you can excuse a naval leader, you need to then incorporate air leaders.

But I don't require them to be assigned to a counter necessarily.

Although out in the middle of the Pacific they sure need to be somewhere

[SeaMonkey]

This sub thing, the naval thing actually has long been one of the SC features which, in my opinion, has been somewhat lacking. Its getting better, but the real crux of the situation is the missing element of "the search". The silent mode for subs is a step in the right direction, but still because of the sea area limitations, naval units are revealed in an unrealistic manner.

Usually naval vessels in port are a known element to the enemy through espionage, but on the high seas, its a different animal altogether. As far as I'm concerned, most naval units should run with a % transparency on the open seas. Only through search and combat actions should their numbers and types be revealed.

I like the ability to maneuver the forces as SC simulates now, its just that in certain choke points of the map, in proximity to land areas, the disclosure of the naval forces is too predominant, negating the search mechanism that is inherent into any naval/air actions.

Thusly results in the surrealism of the SC naval model. Of course the correction is a coding nightmare where units are given a search and an evasion factor that accumulates in proximity to one another to finally reveal enemy forces. And as always there is a variable associated with the mathematics of the calculations. Not an easy accomplishment for Hubert.

So it seeems to me Gentlemen, we have a job to figure out how to present the search and reveal mechanism in a manner that is not only easy to code but simulates the effect.

We have a basis to expand on.....Subs running in silent and hunt mode. It's realistic to a point and it's in the game.

[Nupremal]

I think Naval warfare is not that bad - I like how it is bad to just rush around and you don't spot them until you are almost on top of the unit - that makes sense -

I will grant that it does not work realistically in narrow waters, but of course there was also a better chance of detection there, so it is not too bad. On the ocean it is not easy to find the subs all the time.

[Nupremal]

Oh, and there were subs at Midway - in fact they had an indirect impact - one Japanese DD was hunting for a US sub that had shot a torpedo at a Japanese BB and missed, and it later was spotted as it rejoined the fleet, giving away their position.

[arado234]

Justanotherwargamer1 I have played Third Reich MANY times and I do agree with you in that strategic warfare is in someways better that the SC series only because if you force the British below 75 brps(mpps) at the Year Start they can be forced to sue for peace.Maybe there is someway to add that element to this game.Im not to sure how hard it would be to program.

As for tactical games,the most realistic(board game)I ever played was Squad Leader and its additions.It got so indepth that it actually included bullet ricochets and a host of other VERY tedious rules.It was quite hard to learn but fun once you got the hang of it.

As far as the strategic level counters go,because you cant make a strategic war game as indepth as Squad Leader there is no way to avoid having counters being able to do things they normally couldnt do.I dont think the games(s)would be any fun to play or even function that well if you couldnt.

[justanotherwargamer1]

I am loath to mention this, because it is looking increasingly like it will show up about the same time Combat Leader does (never), but the work on Computer World in Flames may well be the happy medium a lot of wargamers are wanting.

Real wargame look.

Fully global, not theatre specific.

Detailed, turn using, hex based.

Based on a design that had to survive in a board game reality.

But it may well suffer from being to close to War in the Pacific, and too far from Strategic Command.

If I want brutally accurately simulated, I can always start up my War in the Pacific. But there's a reason I don't play it. It's as fun as a long day at the office and no one else showed up for their shift.

Somewhere, somehow, I think the perfect game is a mix of Advanced Tactics from Matrix Games, and Strategic Command from here.

Maybe Hubert's best move, would be to code us a non WW2 game of grand strategy where it's just red vs blue and looks amazingly like a lot of real battles, but not hung up on really being WW2.

If it isn't really the Pacific, then the cultural ideosyncracies of Bushido won't get in the way of how they attend to their war.

[SeaMonkey]

One of my favorite games was ...hmmm. was it SPI or AH's "Blitzkreig". The two major powers(red & blue) were separated from each other by about 5 minors, IIRC.

Les, isn't this what SC aspires to be? Really, when you think about it, it just has all the limitations(WW2)....ie loosely applied, and a geographically semi-accurate map as the playground.

Its a "what if" in an historical context in a designer(HC) defined environment, nothing more, nothing less.

And it is way ahead(4 to 5 years) of the competition. I've never expected anything more, but I do expect it to get better. My defined strategic scaled TOAW, but with better mechanics(TOAW air / naval model was weak....very weak).

[justanotherwargamer1]

It was indeed AH.

"Les, isn't this what SC aspires to be?"

Not sure about that actually. Red vs blue is not required to fret over a whole mountain of hassles.

For instance in a red vs blue environment, there are no famous battles to emulate, no politics to model no technological innovations to recreate.

There is no Malta to be screwed up.

No Russian Winter

No Overlord minus Mulberries issues.

No Uboat war

No one tries to kill off a nation's leader several times.

Nor is there any weak willed appeasers

Nor are there any leaders dealing with Isolationist voters.

And there are no alliances.

The 88 is not made, nor the revolutionary T-34, nor the B-14, or the ME 262 or the Liberty ship.

SC never aspired to being red vs blue to my observations.

And Blitzkrieg had hexes and stacking (had to point that out).

I'm not saying Advanced Tactics is the greatest thing on the market, but, it did make use of the ability to not be trapped by history.

And history is always a barrier to a good wargame if it is set in actual history.

I've read a lot of good scholarly "what if" commentary on the real what if's that might have actually happened, not the what ifs of total fantasy.

Sadly, in some cases, when asked the question, could such and such ever have gone down any differently, the answer usually is No.

History is often about events that happened only because the men in charge were blind to the errors of their thinking.

Did Japan ever have a real chance of winning? Probably not.

Yes, that does tend to suck the life out of the fun of playing a grand strategy game set in WW2 Pacific.

I've played games where the basis of "winning" was determined by how well you did before defeat. I've played some games where I won only through incredible daring and a preposterous bending of logic.

I've WON as the British vs the Japanese in Malaya. The thing is, I also ilustrated a fatal flaw in the game's design.

[arado234]

Just.you did make a good point in that a "victory"for the Axis would be to hold out longer than reality.That in itself is fun to play.I guess if you were to make a WW2 strategic game that way you have to include overall Allied ind.strengtht,plus the Abomb.This would prettywell seal the Axis fate.But if the Axis could hold out alot longer than reality then they would"win".

The game would have to include imho a way that the Brits.dont know when or if the Amis.and Russians will join her side.In other words there would have to be various political possibilties(Western Russia joining Germany)Japan convinced to attack Russia first.These would then GREATLY effect the outcome of the game as they would have in reality.It would be real fun to have this included in a grand strategy game.Just imagine all this with multiple players.Lots of possibilties.

[jon_j_rambo]

Victory Conditions: Would be cool to add some other types of "wins". Almost like a point system variation.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Just.you did make a good point in that a "victory"for the Axis would be to hold out longer than reality.That in itself is fun to play.I guess if you were to make a WW2 strategic game that way you have to include overall Allied ind.strengtht,plus the Abomb.This would prettywell seal the Axis fate.But if the Axis could hold out alot longer than reality then they would"win".

The game would have to include imho a way that the Brits.dont know when or if the Amis.and Russians will join her side.In other words there would have to be various political possibilties(Western Russia joining Germany)Japan convinced to attack Russia first.These would then GREATLY effect the outcome of the game as they would have in reality.It would be real fun to have this included in a grand strategy game.Just imagine all this with multiple players.Lots of possibilties.

Historical limitations raises it's head again.

Russia will never side with Germany in any credible wargame. Politically, they both hated each other, didn't trust each other, were planning to stab each ot5her in the back. Germany merely acted first. In a red vs blue setting, this is never a problem. Side with whomever you like.

Japan had reasons to leave Russia alone. mostly political ones. The justifications merely need to be present I suppose.

But I do favour the notion of a side being boosted out of the game when confronted by sufficiently undesirable political or economic conditions. Being able to get a major power to call it quits, has got to be something of a decisive victory for sure.

If Japan had hit the US at Pearl, trashed the oil reserves, and then gone on to win Coral Sea, and succeed at Midway, just how far would they need to go to get the US to back off and declare "winning" not worth the price.

There's only so much worth you can attach to indignation being avenged.

Would the US commit themselves to a much longer bloodier war willingly.

Too often, I see games of grand strategy expect one side, that most see as never haviung had a long term chance of success, to win merely by refusing to die under an overwhelming eventual advantage.

Germany vs the allies can't hold out indfefinitely which is why if they are still breathing in 46, yes that is an Axis victory.

The same attitude can be applied to Japan.

But, why not give the Japanese side a point at which they get to declare "I win" game stops immediately.

This notion exists in Axis and Allies actually. The Axis side CAN achieve a point where the allies are informed "you lose".

[SeaMonkey]

If ever there was a return to a ladder type competition with SC PTO as the centerpiece, it maybe desirable to define the win-loss circumstances in terms of points awarded.

Historical unconditional surrender(Axis) by the original timeline, "Allied Decisive Victory" = 3 points.

Add a half dozen turns, 3 to 6 months, to the above = 2 points

Marginal Victory defines as another year of conflict = 1 point.

Draw...I don't like draws, forget'em, its win or die! Then I guess its allowable for points to be assessed to the Axis for certain accomplishments also, instead of just delaying the ultimate surrender, which it seems was inevitable?

So what points would be awarded to the Axis players for attaining certain strategic positions throughout the game.

1. Ocuppying Gibraltar and Suez Canal and essentially closing the Mediterranean = 1 point,....for example. Should the Mideast also be a part of the strategic goal?

What I'm saying is other than a timeline victory condition, shouldn't strategic positions also count?

[jon_j_rambo]

Might be fun to play with different victory conditions. Having wild card variations can be interesting too, as 3R had.

[justanotherwargamer1]

In the end there has to be a "point" to playing.

If a game is mired in detail and it allows for the same crazy crap as a game of Axis and Allies, why not just play the damn game of Axis and Allies eh?

I want the Japanese to be able to achieve a realistic victory. But I don't much care to play a game out of a science fiction novel. Especially if the game sells itself as being realistic, and has as much connection to serious as a game of Axis and Allies.

People that play entirely complicated wargames obsessed with minutae, that have no connection with the real event, are just a bit weird if you ask me

[arado234]

Just.as far as Western Russia allied to Germany(which is what would happened if Hitler wasnt Hitler)It wasnt Stalin joining him it was the Ukraine and the rest just wanting to get rid of Stalin.They were going to fight for Germany untill your friendly Einzatsgruppen and the rest of the blockheads started deporting all the Russians back for slave labor and the Germans started stealing all their food and leaving them to starve.This drove them back to the Russians.Alot of the Ukrainian people formed partisan groups who fought both the Russians and the Germans.

If Hitler had played his cards right he could have easily created at minimum another revolt in Russia(like in WW1)and let the Russians fight it out. The Germans would have sent troops and equipment to help fight against Stalin loyalists.Since Germany wouldnt have suffered the huge losses in Russia, this would have freed up huge Military resources to use against the Brits in Africa.It opens up the very real possibilty of Germany "suggesting" to Turkey that it would be in their best interest to allow free passage of German troops to attack the Mideast.Turkey wouldnt have much of a choice.No need to worry about Malta or the British navy.

[CSS]

Freeing up troops against the Brits in Africa? Rommel only had 2 german divisions, The general staff said Germany could conqure North Africa with 6 divisions. Hitler only sent 2. Russia was invaded with about 161 divisions. Th amount needed to drive out the British was indeed quite small!