The Perfect War Game
Mike Raymond
Like most gamers with 30 plus years into the hobby, I have developed
opinions about what makes a good game. To date, I haven’t found a game
that qualifies in every way and that is because my wish list is quite
long.
Beginning in 1970 I spent the next 10 years playing the old tabletop
games from great companies like Avalon Hill, SPI and Game Designers
Workshop. Each game was good and delivered the experience that it
claimed to, but something was always missing.
I began rewriting and augmenting their rules with my own to add, what
I believed, were realistic enhancements. For instance, with Panzer
Leader I added what I termed ‘ripple fire’ rules. In this method of
play the old standard of turn-based attack was changed. This was a WW2
tank-based game with platoon-sized units.
Alternating each turn, a player would begin at one end of the battle
line and fire any unit he wished that had a target. Fired markers were
used to indicate which units had fired. By firing, the unit gave away
its position and became a target. The opposing player could then
choose any of his own units to fire, at that previously spotted unit
or any other. More than one unit could return fire on spotted units.
The firing would move along the line until all units that could fire
had done so, for both sides. Players were not forced to fire all units
that could. Any unit that had not fired was free to move, beginning
again at the start of the line on left or right side.
As each unit moved into the open or line-of-sight of an enemy, it was
a target for any unit that had not previously fired. If any enemy did
fire, the firing unit was immediately spotted and could be engaged as
before. Each unit could fire once per turn.
Eventually, all units from both sides had either fired or moved and
the turn ended. This rule made battle far more interesting. It became
even more interesting when used with the next idea, my half-n-half
rule. Any unit could fire at half-strength and still be able to move
half its normal allowance. It could also move half and then fire
half.
Coupled together, the two new rules made a lot of sense and fighting
became much more intense. My design ideas didn’t end with those
thoughts.
In the early 80’s I became interested in Operational and Strategic
games. In particular, I was playing France 1940, Flattop, and Global
War. These games broadened the scope of play but, as is always the
case, had to abstract a lot to get the job done. The tactical level
suffered because of scale.
I began working on how to retain the detail of tactical combat while
enlarging the possibilities so that a battle meant something in the
big picture. About this time computer games were coming on the scene
and I fell in love with Harpoon, an operational naval simulation. Many
happy hours were spent with the scenario editor of that game.
Still, I was searching for a way to combine all elements, tactical,
operational, and strategic levels. The games I had, if combined, would
come close but the rules had to be melded together. The other problem
would be finding players with the time and patience, not to mention
interest, for that scale of play.
As it turned out, in 1980 I was having 5 friends meet at my place once
a week to play Global War and we were enjoying it. Relocation to
another city threatened to kill our game so I started planning. This
game, played by mail, was the beginning of the answer.
We played by mail in the days of hand-written letters. That is
something to ponder when folks these days are demanding instant
gratification. Our turns were monthly and it was weeks between
letters. The game thrived and the rules had to be adapted to work in
this new format. My game design period was in full swing.
In the following 30 years, I developed that game concept to what is
today, in my opinion, as close as possible to what I consider a
perfect game. There are issues, but the issues are people related.
Given a group of like-minded individuals with enough time to play,
this game satisfies just about every requirement.
I am talking about what is called today “WW2 The Big One”, a game that
is currently being enjoyed online as a PBEM game. It is a set of 9
manuals that together recreate that war in great depth and detail. It
has evolved over the years into an ambitious project that has lured
the video gamers as well as the die-hard table-toppers. Even the
miniatures fans have found it appealing.
This is a pure text-based email game. Turns are 11 days = 1 game
month. Players take roles as leaders, generals, and admirals and work
on either the Allied or Axis side to fight the war. No software need
be downloaded. All you need is a copy of the rules.
There are three levels to the game and multiple types of activity. On
the Strategic level, players are national leaders and deal with
diplomacy, espionage, production, research, and planning the war.
The Operational level is where the plans become movement of land, sea,
and air units. OP commanders issue the movement orders and when that
movement results in contact with the enemy, it is the Tactical level
players who fight the battles.
NO dice are used and no random number generating schemes. Results are
based on conditions, strength of forces, and player decisions. This is
the most unique aspect of the game. There is still an element of
chance in engagements, but like real life they are based on situations
and the opponent. Beginners often overlook possibilities resulting in
losses. The players who plan and work conditions to their favor will
succeed.
The unknown is there as well. Using a game master to mask details of
the enemy strength and locations, together with player choices, makes
each encounter a challenge. For instance, in naval warfare, each
mission has a weather choice. Missions with similar weather choices
can detect each other. With turns representing a month, missions with
dissimilar weather are considered to have sailed on different days,
and miss each other.
Tactical level players can have individual tactics in use for each
type of unit. When compared to the enemy choice of tactics, different
results in combat can happen. Tactics can be changed each turn.
Another unique concept of the game is Command & Control Points. These
are won and lost in combat or as a result of some events like loss of
capital ships or the defeat of an ally. Each level has points, which
can be used to influence battle outcomes.
The Strategic Level players can lend points to the Operational Level
players, representing the interest of the national leaders in specific
operations. The Operational players can lend these and their own
points downward to the Tactical Level, where the fighting takes place.
This represents the focus of high command on the local scene.
Tactical players can command multiple engagements during a turn, but
they can only spend Command Points once. They have to choose which
engagements are the most important and boost their chances with
points. There are rarely enough points to satisfy the need.
Nations are represented by a team consisting of a leader and
operational commanders for land, sea, and air. The tactical level is
not national but side-based. Tactical officers can be called upon by
operational commanders of any nation allied to their side. Combat can
be anywhere in the world.
The game is free to play for a limited time but the rules are a free
download. Everything is done via email.
How much time does it take? Less time than people spend with video
games. Playing involves off-line planning, email discussion among
players, and map work. Although alone, each player feels part of a
team and the levels feel like the chain of command.
There are no deadlines. The 11-day game turn is really about date
change and measuring production times for new units. It doesn't
require players to finish what they are doing as battles can span
turns.
This is my imaginarium ! Thirty years of development have produced a
great game experience for those who seek the group play type of game.
Mike Raymond
http://ww2thebigone.webs.com