Kharkov : Disaster on the Donets - announced
eddys...@hotmail.com
SSG's new baby - well, "new" is maybe not entirely correct as the
press release describes it as :
"A synthesis of the very best elements of two critically acclaimed and
top-rated game systems, Decisive Battles and Battlefront, and a
successor to both"
The screenshots also show the familiar SSG style of operational level
warfare
http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=358
What will need some extra clarification is this bit :
"Perhaps the most innovative new feature of Kharkov: Disaster on the
Donets is the on-map area of operation and mystery variant system.
This new system takes away the advantage of hindsight by restricting
mass unit relocation while allowing the areas to change as you achieve
your objectives, with mystery variants keeping the opponent from
predicting your limits. These new rules represent a realistic modeling
of historical command restrictions and add a new and fascinating layer
to each side’s decision-making."
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:ed3ac595-4a2a-411b...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
SSG's new baby - well, "new" is maybe not entirely correct as the
press release describes it as :
"A synthesis of the very best elements of two critically acclaimed and
top-rated game systems, Decisive Battles and Battlefront, and a
successor to both"
[snip]
What were the lessons gleaned from the Battlefront "system" I wonder ...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> What were the lessons gleaned from the Battlefront "system" I wonder ...
How you can get everything right, and still end up with a game that's
not a success ?
I think Mr. Giftzwerg summed it up quite well with his (paraphrazing
here) : "the ultimate boardgame ... on a computer"
For me the biggest problem was the graphics - they're simply too tiny
and too garish - I've got perfect eyesight, but this game made me
squint to play it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> What will need some extra clarification is this bit :
Clarifications are up here :
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1792278&mpage=1&key=
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
559d3a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> "Perhaps the most innovative new feature of Kharkov: Disaster on the
> Donets is the on-map area of operation and mystery variant system.
> This new system takes away the advantage of hindsight by restricting
> mass unit relocation while allowing the areas to change as you achieve
> your objectives, with mystery variants keeping the opponent from
> predicting your limits. These new rules represent a realistic modeling
> of historical command restrictions and add a new and fascinating layer
> to each side s decision-making."
Perhaps I'm just more dense than usual this AM, but what the heck does
any of this mean? Do I *want* to be restricted in my zeal for mass unit
relocation, and will it make my life happier that areas are allowed to
change as I achieve my objectives?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[I]t is no use for Obama to backpedal from his association with
Reverend Wright, or to denounce him now, six weeks too late. It was
Obama who sought to provide the Reverend Wright with immunity from
criticism - and he can't complain when the reverend tries to take full
advantage of that immunity."
- Robert Tracinski
"Too little, too late, too lawyerly."
- Glenn Reynolds
von Schmidt
IMO:
1. Garish graphics
2. Limited scenarios (4)
3. AI worse than SSG's usual high standard
4. Artillery weirdly modelled (basically useless unless against units
on the move; completely useless for defensive battles).
I'll still check out the new title, because when SSG are good, they're
very, very good.
Regards,
-von Schmidt
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <ed3ac595-4a2a-411b-a519-
>559d3a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> "Perhaps the most innovative new feature of Kharkov: Disaster on the
>> Donets is the on-map area of operation and mystery variant system.
>> This new system takes away the advantage of hindsight by restricting
>> mass unit relocation while allowing the areas to change as you achieve
>> your objectives, with mystery variants keeping the opponent from
>> predicting your limits. These new rules represent a realistic modeling
>> of historical command restrictions and add a new and fascinating layer
>> to each side?s decision-making."
>
>Perhaps I'm just more dense than usual this AM, but what the heck does
>any of this mean? Do I *want* to be restricted in my zeal for mass unit
>relocation, and will it make my life happier that areas are allowed to
>change as I achieve my objectives?
Judging from that forum thread, they're going to limit the units to
their historic area of operations. You can't just arbitrarily move
them all over the map.
Is it a good idea? My initial reaction is 'probably not', given the
game system. The SSG games all have high unit/counter densities. Now
you're not only going to be worried about where to send units, you
also have to click through all the units on the board to find the ones
that are allowed to move to whatever place you need to send
reinforcements.
It doesn't look like they've changed the UI from previous titles so
you're taking screens that were already relatively cluttered and
adding another layer of complexity to them. A layer that, by it's very
nature, will be hard to access for the user since each unit will be
different. I hope that they'll at least have an option to click on a
hex and see what units can move there.
I really wish they'd decided to spend time on the UI instead, for a
new game. SSG has always games that were technically top-notch, with
argueably the best AIs of any wargames but, to put it mildly, their
sense of style and presentation sucks. There's nothing there to pull
in a player.
Rgds, Frank
Mike Kreuzer
news:aK0ZSAtV+s6fGq...@4ax.com...
Absolutely. If limiting where a player can send units is a good idea then
you're right, SSG've built the UI exactly the wrong way around. And I'm not
at all sure that it is a good idea, cause isn't sending units where you
think they'll do the most good kind of the point of playing? Yeah yeah,
historical constraints, blah blah, but it'd be a scripted Stalin even more
moronic than the real one that'd be telling me "nope, that's a reserve unit,
you can't use it to exploit that enormous hole you've just blown in their
line ..." It doesn't sound like much fun frankly.
> I really wish they'd decided to spend time on the UI instead, for a
> new game. SSG has always games that were technically top-notch, with
> argueably the best AIs of any wargames but, to put it mildly, their
> sense of style and presentation sucks. There's nothing there to pull
> in a player.
>
> Rgds, Frank
>
You know, I really am keen to know just what lessons they learnt from
battlefront that lead then to abandon it rather than fix it. What about
Battlefront was so fundamentally hopeless? I'd like to hear them say.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Perhaps I'm just more dense than usual this AM, but what the heck does
> >any of this mean? Do I *want* to be restricted in my zeal for mass unit
> >relocation, and will it make my life happier that areas are allowed to
> >change as I achieve my objectives?
>
> Judging from that forum thread, they're going to limit the units to
> their historic area of operations. You can't just arbitrarily move
> them all over the map.
Ah. The "heart attack" model of game design, writ a wee bit larger.
The multi-front commander has placed his fronts and assigned the AO for
dozens of full armies, then died suddenly. So you can only implement
*his* plan, and not come up with your own.
I've got the same concerns you do, re the interface, but my main worry
gets right to the heart of boardgame-simulator designs; the potential
for gamey exploits. For example, if the 4th Panzer Army has an AO which
it cannot depart from, an opponent who could somehow predict / guess /
suspect where the 4th's "line" was could safely station a pile of
vulnerable artillery units just across that line, secure in the
knowledge that The Magic Line is a better defense than a dozen crack
infantry regiments. You think "hugging the map edge" is a gamey tactic?
The potential here is to have "map edges" left and right, with players
gazing wistfully across The Magic Lines at enemies they cannot get at.
Giftzwerg
says...
> And I'm not
> at all sure that it is a good idea, cause isn't sending units where you
> think they'll do the most good kind of the point of playing? Yeah yeah,
> historical constraints, blah blah, but it'd be a scripted Stalin even more
> moronic than the real one that'd be telling me "nope, that's a reserve unit,
> you can't use it to exploit that enormous hole you've just blown in their
> line ..." It doesn't sound like much fun frankly.
And it raises the issue of what level of commander is being simulated by
the player. Given the pile of *armies* in the player's OOB, isn't SSG
essentially putting the player in the position of commanding a Soviet
front or German army group? If not OKH or Stavka? Couldn't a general
this "big" pretty much redefine the AO of a division, corps, or army on
the fly?
Patton turned his whole army 90 degrees and sailed right out of his AO
and into a whole different country, in a matter of days, with nothing
more than a handshake from Omar Bradley. I'm supposed to be a German
Field Marshal, and I can't do the same thing?
ERutins
> gets right to the heart of boardgame-simulator designs; the potential
> for gamey exploits. For example, if the 4th Panzer Army has an AO which
> it cannot depart from, an opponent who could somehow predict / guess /
> suspect where the 4th's "line" was could safely station a pile of
> vulnerable artillery units just across that line, secure in the
> knowledge that The Magic Line is a better defense than a dozen crack
> infantry regiments. You think "hugging the map edge" is a gamey tactic?
> The potential here is to have "map edges" left and right, with players
> gazing wistfully across The Magic Lines at enemies they cannot get at.
You might want to read through the additional details, including
"Mystery Variants" and how AOs can change based on local performance,
in the intro thread on the forum here:
ERutins
meet in the same result. I'd suggest giving it a try before judging
too harshly. I think it works interface-wise and does not bog down
the game. It really does change the decision-making and keeps you
focused on the challenges the historical commanders would face.
Finally (and this is key for the skeptics) - you can turn Areas of
Operations entirely OFF if you'd rather not play with them. It's part
of the standard scenario options, you can set historical AOs, Mystery
AOs, choose a particular variant or have No AOs at all.
Regards,
- Erik
Bloodstar
I couldn't resist it :)))
Giftzwerg
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
Well done. Always a good idea to let players turn off a designers Fancy
New Thing.
Giftzwerg
90f92a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com
says...
My basic concern, though, is that you're modeling the player at the
level of command that, in the real world, set the AO limits in the first
place, and forcing him to abide by them as though they weren't a limit
that *he himself set*. "Oh, look, a vulnerable enemy unit just outside
the 23rd Tank Regiment's AO. Oh, well, I sure wish I could order them
to attack it, and it has enough logistics to do so, but I drew a line on
the map so there's nothing for it."
Even worse, from the opponent's perspective, he can reason, "Boy, the
ol' 2nd Panzergrenadier Battalion sure would be a threat to my supply
depot ... if not for that pesky AO thingie that means I don't have to
worry about defending against it until Turn 7."
I mean, can you imagine the commander of a panzer regiment telling
Rommel, "Listen, Bub, I'd like to attack that wide-open enemy infantry
unit that popped up unexpectedly, but there's the matter of this red
line you drew yesterday between my panzers and them. Sorry, old boy,
impossible to carry out your orders."
<FX: Loud German voice giving orders to firing squad>
Ray O'Hara
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:172e8044-62b3-4178...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
the italy was the worst. i got crosseyed just looking at the screenshots
ERutins
> level of command that, in the real world, set the AO limits in the first
> place, and forcing him to abide by them as though they weren't a limit
> that *he himself set*. "Oh, look, a vulnerable enemy unit just outside
> the 23rd Tank Regiment's AO. Oh, well, I sure wish I could order them
> to attack it, and it has enough logistics to do so, but I drew a line on
> the map so there's nothing for it."
The guys at SSG are really the best ones to answer this, but I'll say
that from my reading of history, the commander at the level you are at
in this game often had even less control. AOs were planned out ahead
of time. Each regiment does not necessarily have its own AO, but
larger formations do as well as some independent formations like
separate brigades. Limiting friendly fire, avoiding the stall-out
that could happen when friendly units got in each other's way, etc.
were all great reasons to define AOs before a campaign started and the
division or corps commanders stuck to them. Yes, they could be
changed, but often not _during_ a long-planned operation. It was
usually after the operation had concluded - changes within were
usually based on pre-agreed plans. There were certainly cases where
fluidity resulted in AOs changing from day to day - that's something
that SSG should discuss as far as how that's reflected.
I know that AOs can change based on how you do and most importantly
that as time goes on they are relaxed (i.e. stick to the initial plan,
then you can start to improvise a bit more). In many wargames, you
have winning strategies devised on maneuvers and unit mixes that would
have resulted in a logistical/transportation/command disaster in real
life. This system is a fairly transparent way to enforce at least
some of the limits of historical formation control and disentanglement
without limiting the player to only one set track.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
> > My basic concern, though, is that you're modeling the player at the
> > level of command that, in the real world, set the AO limits in the first
> > place, and forcing him to abide by them as though they weren't a limit
> > that *he himself set*. "Oh, look, a vulnerable enemy unit just outside
> > the 23rd Tank Regiment's AO. Oh, well, I sure wish I could order them
> > to attack it, and it has enough logistics to do so, but I drew a line on
> > the map so there's nothing for it."
>
> The guys at SSG are really the best ones to answer this, but I'll say
> that from my reading of history, the commander at the level you are at
> in this game often had even less control. AOs were planned out ahead
> of time. Each regiment does not necessarily have its own AO, but
> larger formations do as well as some independent formations like
> separate brigades. Limiting friendly fire, avoiding the stall-out
> that could happen when friendly units got in each other's way, etc.
> were all great reasons to define AOs before a campaign started and the
> division or corps commanders stuck to them. Yes, they could be
> changed, but often not _during_ a long-planned operation.
I can oppose this with two powerful arguments:
Rommel.
Patton.
Arguably the two finest generals of WW2, and both *routinely* led from
the front lines, changing their plans *on the fly*. Now, are you
seriously arguing that this wonderful new system precludes players from
commanding like Rommel or Patton - that we *must* game things out as
though we were Montgomery?
I'm not sure "constrained so you have to woodenly implement somebody
else's pre-prepared plan" is the kind of thing you want in the PR blurb.
> It was
> usually after the operation had concluded - changes within were
> usually based on pre-agreed plans. There were certainly cases where
> fluidity resulted in AOs changing from day to day - that's something
> that SSG should discuss as far as how that's reflected.
Exactly. I'd argue that, within what was *possible, the whole point of
wargaming is to have the same control the player's real-world
counterpart did. So if I'm to be constrained by arbitrary AO lines
which rigorously prohibit innovation, then at least let *me* draw the AO
lines, eh?
Because people are going to hammer a simulation where their real
counterpart could just pick up a ringing phone and say, "Hell, yes;
absolutely attack that target of opportunity just across Phase Line
Zebra," but the attractive target is grayed-out in the game.
> I know that AOs can change based on how you do and most importantly
> that as time goes on they are relaxed (i.e. stick to the initial plan,
> then you can start to improvise a bit more). In many wargames, you
> have winning strategies devised on maneuvers and unit mixes that would
> have resulted in a logistical/transportation/command disaster in real
> life. This system is a fairly transparent way to enforce at least
> some of the limits of historical formation control and disentanglement
> without limiting the player to only one set track.
But once I play a given scenario as a certain side, won't I *know* what
that force's limitations are? And if I play the other side, won't I
*know* that I don't have to worry about the 6th Panzer Division until
the Germans jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-a-cotton, thus freeing it
up to move six more hexes?
ERutins
> But once I play a given scenario as a certain side, won't I *know* what
> that force's limitations are? And if I play the other side, won't I
> *know* that I don't have to worry about the 6th Panzer Division until
> the Germans jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-a-cotton, thus freeing it
> up to move six more hexes?
That's the entire point of the mystery variants, so that you don't
actually know.
James D Burns
news:MPG.2283b204d3020d369899d8@localhost...
>My basic concern, though, is that you're modeling the player at the
>level of command that, in the real world, set the AO limits in the first
>place, and forcing him to abide by them as though they weren't a limit
>that *he himself set*. "Oh, look, a vulnerable enemy unit just outside
>the 23rd Tank Regiment's AO. Oh, well, I sure wish I could order them
>to attack it, and it has enough logistics to do so, but I drew a line on
>the map so there's nothing for it."
The Argentan-Falaise pocket happened exactly because of a similar situation.
Bradley halted Patton's XV Corp at Argentan 25 miles south from the
Canadians who were attacking southwards from the north of the forming
pocket. It took almost a week to get things coordinated so units from the
north and south could try and seal the pocket. Almost half the German army
escaped because of the delay. Bradley did call Montgomery to try and get
permission to continue north within 21st Army's boundary lines, but
Montgomery in his typical timid fashion, refused.
I personally think the AO limitation rule is a good thing for certain
situations you might want to model, but I doubt I'd play with it on in most
situations.
Jim
Giftzwerg
It appears to more accurately model situations where an over-rigid
reliance on planning screwed things up than situations where quick and
effective generaling and staff work performed wonders. Methinks players
would appreciate not being channelled into the former ... and gravitate
towards a system that at least allowed the possibility of the latter.
Gregor Whiley
I appreciate the questions about the Areas of Operations. It's always
hard to grasp what new features are all about, so I wrote an article
introducing them. You can find it here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1792278 and it will be on
the SSG site soon as well.
However, I would like to address questions that have been raised here
as well.
Short Reply to Questions Raised
There are no Rommels, or even Pattons, in the Red Army.
Patton's move to Bastogne was regarded as the wonder of its military
age, and was never repeated. It was made possible because on Patton's
original front he was facing weak opposition that could barely move
and was a negligible offensive threat.
Rommel exploited a first class French road network and I seem to
recall refuelled his Panzers from civilian gas stations, both
conspicuously absent from the backblocks of Russia.
Areas of Operations are entirely optional.
Long Reply to Questions Raised
The Areas of Operations concept seeks to solve some long standing game
issues which can be summarised as hindsight, and the ability to act on
hindsight. Hindsight, or even just playing the game once, reveals that
the Soviet southern front is weakly defended and will be hit by a
German juggernaut. Why then would the Russian player use his southern
forces to attack west towards Krasnograd or northwest towards Kharkov?
Why wouldn't he strip most of the attacking forces from his northern
pincer and turn Disaster on the Donets into Stalemate at Izyum?
The answer is that he couldn't. Even if a friendly wargamer
time-machined back to warn him, he couldn't defy Stalin and the
Stavka's orders. Even if he was Stalin, he couldn't move all those men
over a non existent road network to a brand new location and he
certainly couldn't move the vast mountains of supplies that been
laboriously concentrated in their original locations.
So Areas of Operations are intended to bring about more historical
outcomes in battles, by posing more realistic challenges to players.
The Soviet player can't unrealistically and ahistorically reinforce
his southern front, because the formations that he would use to do
that simply aren't allowed to move there. Similarly, the German player
can't strip his lines of defenders and pile them up in front of
Kharkov because he knows where the main Russian blow must fall. That's
fair to both sides.
However, the German player, he does have certain advantages. For
example the 294th Infantry Division belongs to XVII Korps and is
initially restricted to defending the area around Kharkov. However,
the 23rd and 3rd Panzer Divisions belong to 6th Army and they can
range over most of the battlefield right from the start, acting as a
much needed fire brigade. Only Front level Soviet reserves are given
similar latitude but this makes them perform their historically
valuable role. Without Areas of Operations, the idea of reserve
formations is lost and the player can use them casually when
historically the commitment of reserve formations was a crucial
decision.
Areas of Operations are typically broadened over time but can also be
triggered by objectives. The Soviets can release their Tank Corps
early if they take certain objectives and restrictions on their
southern formations are relaxed when the German offensive in the south
makes sufficient progress.
As well as bringing realism, Areas of Operations also bring a measure
of certainty. Instead of a conceptually blank canvas, you are given a
plan, broad outlines that you work within to achieve victory.
The Mystery Variants prevent gaming the system. You can't be certain
what Areas of Operations your opponent has, so there's no point in
trying to line up on the edges of those areas. You might over-commit
to the defence of the release hexes of the Soviet 21st and 23rd Tank
Corps, only to find that a variant has sprung them early, and that
they've just taken Krasnograd, which you stripped of defenders for
your cunning plan.
Of course, realism isn't the only goal. A game has to be fun, and this
battle is hugely enjoyable. Both sides get to unleash major offensive
power and both have moments of grim, even desperate defence, sometimes
on the same turn. The combination of Areas of Operations and Mystery
Variants takes you out of any comfort zone and creates tense, exciting
and highly variable battles.
Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
eddys...@hotmail.com
> but
> Montgomery in his typical timid fashion, refused.
"Timid" is not the word I'd use for the most overrated general of
WWII ...
> I personally think the AO limitation rule is a good thing for certain
> situations you might want to model,
Right - as an extra option it's fine - if they had marketed it as
"default = off, but you can model AO's to see what your real-life
counterparts were up against" nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Briarroot
>> My basic concern, though, is that you're modeling the player at the
>> level of command that, in the real world, set the AO limits in the first
>> place, and forcing him to abide by them as though they weren't a limit
>> that *he himself set*. "Oh, look, a vulnerable enemy unit just outside
>> the 23rd Tank Regiment's AO. Oh, well, I sure wish I could order them
>> to attack it, and it has enough logistics to do so, but I drew a line on
>> the map so there's nothing for it."
>
> The guys at SSG are really the best ones to answer this, but I'll say
> that from my reading of history, the commander at the level you are at
> in this game often had even less control. AOs were planned out ahead
> of time. Each regiment does not necessarily have its own AO, but
> larger formations do as well as some independent formations like
> separate brigades. Limiting friendly fire, avoiding the stall-out
> that could happen when friendly units got in each other's way, etc.
> were all great reasons to define AOs before a campaign started and the
> division or corps commanders stuck to them. Yes, they could be
> changed, but often not _during_ a long-planned operation. It was
> usually after the operation had concluded - changes within were
> usually based on pre-agreed plans.
>
That sounds like a description of the Red Army in WW2, which was
infamous for its inflexibility and bone-headed adherence to plans and
orders. Their German opponents, in contrast, were justly famous for the
opposite approach. The Germans took pains to indoctrinate their officer
corps with the idea that "seizing the moment" in the field could be a
far more important contribution to victory than rigidly following orders
and staying within preplanned boundaries. Indeed, the best known German
commanders today, Rommel and Guderian, enjoyed their greatest successes
and made their reputations by *not* sticking to The Plan.
> There were certainly cases where
> fluidity resulted in AOs changing from day to day - that's something
> that SSG should discuss as far as how that's reflected.
>
> I know that AOs can change based on how you do and most importantly
> that as time goes on they are relaxed (i.e. stick to the initial plan,
> then you can start to improvise a bit more). In many wargames, you
> have winning strategies devised on maneuvers and unit mixes that would
> have resulted in a logistical/transportation/command disaster in real
> life.
>
Sure, depending on the length of the operation, that's true. However,
necessity often forced commanders to "put out the fire" first and worry
about logistics second.
> This system is a fairly transparent way to enforce at least
> some of the limits of historical formation control and disentanglement
> without limiting the player to only one set track.
>
Since it's an option that can be turned on or off at will, there should
be few(er) complaints. ;-)
--
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation
because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize
the nation because the people are so rich." - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Giftzwerg
gwhile...@ssg.com.au says...
> Short Reply to Questions Raised
> There are no Rommels, or even Pattons, in the Red Army.
But there are *many* aspiring "Rommels" and even prospective "Pattons"
in the ranks of your customers.
That's my point.
If the a limitation on movement is based on the unit's lack of mobility,
the force's lack of logistics, or the nation's lack of C^3 resources,
then ... fine. No problem.
But you're just drawing an arbitrary "box" around the player's units and
explaining this as some sort of pre-prepared battle plan which imposes
this arbitrary limitation. Again, if you're going to limit me this way,
at least let *me* draw the lines.
> Patton's move to Bastogne was regarded as the wonder of its military
> age, and was never repeated. It was made possible because on Patton's
> original front he was facing weak opposition that could barely move
> and was a negligible offensive threat.
That's not the point. The point is that he *immediately* discarded all
of his pre-planned AOs for all of his units that would be attacking,
changed the axis of advance for his whole army, and helped turn the tide
of the enemy. In KHARKOV terms, he erased all the neat little boxes
that came built into the scenario he was already playing reacted with
his whole army.
Why can't *I* toss out your pre-planned arbitrary limits in KHARKOV and
do what I want? Am I not at a level of command sufficient to do this?
Don't I have multiple corps / armies / fronts under my command?
> Rommel exploited a first class French road network and I seem to
> recall refuelled his Panzers from civilian gas stations, both
> conspicuously absent from the backblocks of Russia.
> Areas of Operations are entirely optional.
But I do seem to recall some business in the desert, characterized more
by lightning adaptations to enemy moves than rigid playing out of long-
planned maneuvers.
> Long Reply to Questions Raised
> The Areas of Operations concept seeks to solve some long standing game
> issues which can be summarised as hindsight, and the ability to act on
> hindsight. Hindsight, or even just playing the game once, reveals that
> the Soviet southern front is weakly defended and will be hit by a
> German juggernaut. Why then would the Russian player use his southern
> forces to attack west towards Krasnograd or northwest towards Kharkov?
> Why wouldn't he strip most of the attacking forces from his northern
> pincer and turn Disaster on the Donets into Stalemate at Izyum?
<throws up hands>
Well, *duuuuuuuh*. Gregor, I'm open-mouthed with amazement to have to
explain this, but *doing things differently* is the whole friggin' point
of wargaming!!!!
> The answer is that he couldn't. Even if a friendly wargamer
> time-machined back to warn him, he couldn't defy Stalin and the
> Stavka's orders. Even if he was Stalin, he couldn't move all those men
> over a non existent road network to a brand new location and he
> certainly couldn't move the vast mountains of supplies that been
> laboriously concentrated in their original locations.
<sigh>
So "playing" this game is just a woodenheaded exercise in rigidly
carrying out a pre-prepared - and *stupid* - plan, with the player's
only hope that he can wriggle and twist and get a few better dice rolls
than history handed out?
And as a general game-design philosophy, the way to demonstrate that
"it's impossible to do <thing>" is to make it realistically hard to do
<thing> and let the gamer explore the possibilities on his own. In
other words, if you want to tell me it's impossible to cross the Alps
with my army and all my elephants, then make movement in the Alps
difficult, make travel painfully slow, make the elephants die like
flies, and generally reflect realistic conditions.
But do not just draw a line on the map and make a special rule that
says, "Carthaginian units cannot cross a white hex-side."
PS: Who does the player in this game represent? *Exactly*. I guess it
isn't Stavka or Stalin ... so who is it?
> So Areas of Operations are intended to bring about more historical
> outcomes in battles, by posing more realistic challenges to players.
Wargamers don't want to be locked into the "historical outcomes." We
want to explore how history could have been changed.
That's. The. Whole. Point.
> The Soviet player can't unrealistically and ahistorically reinforce
> his southern front, because the formations that he would use to do
> that simply aren't allowed to move there. Similarly, the German player
> can't strip his lines of defenders and pile them up in front of
> Kharkov because he knows where the main Russian blow must fall. That's
> fair to both sides.
Who cares? What you're describing isn't even a boardgame-simulator;
it's watching a movie where two players game a scenario on a boardgame-
simulator.
> Of course, realism isn't the only goal. A game has to be fun, and this
> battle is hugely enjoyable. Both sides get to unleash major offensive
> power and both have moments of grim, even desperate defence, sometimes
> on the same turn. The combination of Areas of Operations and Mystery
> Variants takes you out of any comfort zone and creates tense, exciting
> and highly variable battles.
I think it sounds like the worst features of a boardgame, combined with
a terrible focus on chasing history, to the point where the "gamer" just
shuffles through the motions of shoveling his counters in the only
direction they're allowed to move.
Whew. What fun.
Giftzwerg
Bria...@gmail.com says...
> That sounds like a description of the Red Army in WW2, which was
> infamous for its inflexibility and bone-headed adherence to plans and
> orders. Their German opponents, in contrast, were justly famous for the
> opposite approach. The Germans took pains to indoctrinate their officer
> corps with the idea that "seizing the moment" in the field could be a
> far more important contribution to victory than rigidly following orders
> and staying within preplanned boundaries. Indeed, the best known German
> commanders today, Rommel and Guderian, enjoyed their greatest successes
> and made their reputations by *not* sticking to The Plan.
I'm not sure what I dislike more about the proposed system.
Almost zero wargames give the players something like free setup - even
as an optional variant. So to a great extent, you're already stuck with
just gaming out the plan the historical characters came up with.
But this game takes it a step further; not only are you stuck with the
original setup and thus *indirectly* have little choice but to game out
the pre-planning, but the pre-planning is built into the very
functioning of the units themselves. Even if you *want* to desperately
try to remaneuver to set up your own dispositions, you're stuffed.
And there's even a worse potential for hair-pulling *tactical*
frustration here. We could see the surreal picture of a panzer brigade
two hexes away from a Russian supply depot or artillery unit or even an
*objective* ... but - locked into its' arbitrary AO - it cannot cross
The Magic Line and attack.
"Comrade General! Hitler's staff car is pulling into his field
headquarters! The *fuhrer* himself is only two kilometers away! I have
100 Soviet tanks under my command! Request permission to attack and end
the whole war!"
"Negative. Continue to grind forward woodenly in your pre-planned
vector."
Vincenzo Beretta
> a terrible focus on chasing history, to the point where the "gamer" just
> shuffles through the motions of shoveling his counters in the only
> direction they're allowed to move.
IIRC, this is what sank "Patriot" by Three-Sixty (along with Three-Sixty). I
hope that the lesson has not been forgotten.
Bloodstar
Well, I just bought Glantz' book "Kharkov 1942" and I guess that you used
that book as a main reference when you made the game.
Don't listen to Gifty he is again shooting in the empty baloon.
He need to get that book to undestand the topic better. I got mine on Abe
Books and it was not cheap at all, but it is no longer in print so you must
get second hand...
Stalin knew that Germans will attack on Southern front. Yes, he maintained
powerful defenses around Moscow and when Bock wanted to deal with 5th tank
army threat north of Voronezh Hitler got mad and sacked him. He wanted to
make a big dash toward Caucaus and Stalingrad. That later would bring much
troubles to the Germans because Bock knew that when you leave Russians in
peace along some of flank it can be very dangerous.
Now, Stalin knew that Red Army is still not prepared for a good defense
which was proved correct at Kerch as well.
So he made offensive toward Kharkov, even Krasnograd and Zaporozhe.
Basically he wanted to disrupt German preparations for a Summer offensive.
Well, I have not read whole book yet - only parts so cannot be much
informative.
This could be good historical simulation.
Mario
James D Burns
>
> I'm not sure what I dislike more about the proposed system.
>
I too am not a huge fan of the system, but I do think you are far
over-reacting to the addition/change in some of your posts. After all it is
an optional rule, you don't have to play with. And in my opinion more
options are always better.
It isn't something I'd use/play with in most scenarios, but there are those
times when I could see this as a great tool to recreate command rivalries
and political difficulties faced by commanders. Not always for sure, but
sometimes it would actually be a good thing to have.
Jim
eddys...@hotmail.com
The whole AO thing is optional - a checkbox in the options window - I
guess the point we're trying to make is it should be "off" by
default :)
When I first read it the game's description it stuck our like a sore
thumb, that's why I put a question mark next to it in my OP as I'm
also a gamer who likes to explore the what-ifs of a situation, not
game out the historical battle - though there are plenty of gamers who
like that too, so making it optional is giving each type of gamer what
he wants. Case closed, unless you want to argue that precious
development time was lost there which could have been used for <insert
next highest item on he wish list>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> thumb, that's why I put a question mark next to it in my OP as I'm
> also a gamer who likes to explore the what-ifs of a situation, not
> game out the historical battle - though there are plenty of gamers who
> like that too, so making it optional is giving each type of gamer what
> he wants. Case closed, unless you want to argue that precious
> development time was lost there which could have been used for <insert
> next highest item on he wish list>
No. But when a *radical* feature in a game can be turned on or off, then the
problem becomes one of balance, realism and general cohesiveness of the
gameplay. Just think to how a game changes with "fog of war" on or off.
Other games, for example, do limit "units running around" by assigning to
them various penalities if they are too far from their HQ(s). What happens
in Kharkov when you turn AO off? Are there some rules that still force the
player to use his formations in a coherent way, or the game, literally,
becomes "every unit for itself"? If the second one is true, then the game
would have two options: either a movie of the battle or "Jason Pollock
relieves von Bock"
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > When I first read it the game's description it stuck our like a sore
> > thumb, that's why I put a question mark next to it in my OP as I'm
> > also a gamer who likes to explore the what-ifs of a situation, not
> > game out the historical battle - though there are plenty of gamers who
> > like that too, so making it optional is giving each type of gamer what
> > he wants. Case closed, unless you want to argue that precious
> > development time was lost there which could have been used for <insert
> > next highest item on he wish list>
>
> No. But when a *radical* feature in a game can be turned on or off, then the
> problem becomes one of balance, realism and general cohesiveness of the
> gameplay. Just think to how a game changes with "fog of war" on or off.
>
> Other games, for example, do limit "units running around" by assigning to
> them various penalities if they are too far from their HQ(s). What happens
> in Kharkov when you turn AO off? Are there some rules that still force the
> player to use his formations in a coherent way, or the game, literally,
> becomes "every unit for itself"?
Given previous SSG games which have a "formation bonus" I doubt it'll
be a "every unit for itself"
See, that's a realism feature I like - a realistic penalty/bonus if
you don't adhere to doctrine/best practices of the period, but you're
not *forced* by the game to play this way, the game simply gives a
bonus to those gamers who employ their units in a historically correct
way.
When Patton turned his army 90 degrees to the left to relieve Bastogne
he pretty well knew there was going to be a penalty in losses, unit
cohesion, supply and so on, but as a commander it was his decision to
eat that penalty for the greater good. 4th Armoured took some extra
casualties as a result of that mad rush, but it was a good call.
As a gamer I want to make that call too - with realistic consequences
for my choice - so please, do not limit me in making that choice.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
I.e. "against Mario" for those who don't know Mariospeak =)
Giftzwerg
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> When I first read it the game's description it stuck our like a sore
> thumb, that's why I put a question mark next to it in my OP as I'm
> also a gamer who likes to explore the what-ifs of a situation, not
> game out the historical battle - though there are plenty of gamers who
> like that too, so making it optional is giving each type of gamer what
> he wants. Case closed, unless you want to argue that precious
> development time was lost there which could have been used for <insert
> next highest item on he wish list>
It seems to me there are two directions a design can take; offering
players more and more control (within the practical limitations of the
real-world situation), and removing control to chase the historical
results.
At one pole, we arrive at a "game" that's really just a movie of the
historical operation, and the "player" essentially watches the battle
unfold using the trappings of the simulation.
At the other pole, the player is allowed to freely re-write history.
I must prefer the latter. But KHARKOV seems more like the former, at
least in terms of design direction.
But everything here centers on the question, "What level of command is
being simulated by the player?" And KHARKOV seems a bit conflicted. If
the player is Stalin or STAVKA, then these "AO" restrictions are
ridiculous. But if the player *isn't* Stalin or STAVKA, then he does
seem to have an overly vast slate of units under his command.
Which is it?
Giftzwerg
> > I'm not sure what I dislike more about the proposed system.
> I too am not a huge fan of the system, but I do think you are far
> over-reacting to the addition/change in some of your posts. After all it is
> an optional rule, you don't have to play with. And in my opinion more
> options are always better.
Absolutely. But what I'm truly arguing against here is the design
direction that SSG (and many others...) appears to be setting off on;
giving players *less* control in the name of chasing the historical
results.
> It isn't something I'd use/play with in most scenarios, but there are those
> times when I could see this as a great tool to recreate command rivalries
> and political difficulties faced by commanders. Not always for sure, but
> sometimes it would actually be a good thing to have.
But how about designers representing the other extreme once in a while?
Free setup. Let the player organize his units as he'd like, and - for
once - come up with his own strategic plan and implement it, soup to
nuts.
For example, take a hypothetical "Barbarossa" game. Typically, the game
starts with the Germans / Russian organized as they were in June 1941,
and the German player starts moving his counters.
But why is the German player stuck with the historical setup? Why can't
he, instead of having Army Groups North, Center, and South, put all his
tanks into "Army Group Blitzkrieg", and follow with two huge flanking
infantry groups? Might not work. Might even be a stupid idea. But why
not give it a try?
My point here is that if the gamer has control of all the German units
on the eastern front, then he's effectively *Hitler*, so there's no
reason he couldn't have rearranged his units as he liked.
Why do so many games not only avoid this free-setup philosophy, but
actively seem to be trending in the opposite direction? I mean, are
wargamers really crying out for *less* ability to re-write history?!?
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <184f5f8d-00cb-47b9-8857-2ba3b181841a@
>
> > When I first read it the game's description it stuck our like a sore
> > thumb, that's why I put a question mark next to it in my OP as I'm
> > also a gamer who likes to explore the what-ifs of a situation, not
> > game out the historical battle - though there are plenty of gamers who
> > like that too, so making it optional is giving each type of gamer what
> > he wants. Case closed, unless you want to argue that precious
> > development time was lost there which could have been used for <insert
> > next highest item on he wish list>
>
> It seems to me there are two directions a design can take; offering
> players more and more control (within the practical limitations of the
> real-world situation), and removing control to chase the historical
> results.
Correct. It's the default pitfall for an established "series" to put
in extra layers and layers of realism, while the success of the
original game in the series was often it's simplicity and the way it
managed to abstract reality in a fun way.
Adding realism to a game does not equal adding fun.
My car computer tells me my average speed has been hovering around 40
mph for years and years, road reality for me is traffic jams & speed
traps, but when I buy a "street car racing" game I *expect* to be able
to run the red lights and overtake on the sidewalk. A game which would
limit me in doing those things for the sake of realism would be
shunned.
Same thing for wargames. I know a hundred good reasons why the Germans
couldn't have invaded Britain, yet a WWII Grand Strategic game where a
Sealion is impossible would be a big no-no for me. Make it hard, make
it tough, but don't make it that I can't even try it because of some
historical realism consideration. What I want is a game, not a lesson
in history.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> See, that's a realism feature I like - a realistic penalty/bonus if
> you don't adhere to doctrine/best practices of the period, but you're
> not *forced* by the game to play this way, the game simply gives a
> bonus to those gamers who employ their units in a historically correct
> way.
>
> When Patton turned his army 90 degrees to the left to relieve Bastogne
> he pretty well knew there was going to be a penalty in losses, unit
> cohesion, supply and so on, but as a commander it was his decision to
> eat that penalty for the greater good. 4th Armoured took some extra
> casualties as a result of that mad rush, but it was a good call.
>
> As a gamer I want to make that call too - with realistic consequences
> for my choice - so please, do not limit me in making that choice.
<applause>
Yes. Exactly.
It's probably a terrible idea for much of the French Army to dash
forward into Belgium in the summer of 1940.
Yup, it's "hindsight" - or just simple obviousness - that we all know
that's a terrible idea.
So let's not have some "AO limitation" or "special rules" that *force*
the French player to be that stupid because the better choices are
grayed-out.
If that means that the historical results occur less often, then *so be
it*. There's no goddamn point in gaming out France '40 as the French
unless you want to try something completely different.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Don't listen to Gifty he is again shooting in the empty baloon.
>
> I.e. "against Mario" for those who don't know Mariospeak =)
I'm still a bit disturbed by the idiom.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Absolutely. But what I'm truly arguing against here is the design
> direction that SSG (and many others...) appears to be setting off on;
> giving players *less* control in the name of chasing the historical
> results.
Wow - same sentiment, posted 2 minutes before me :)
> But why is the German player stuck with the historical setup? Why can't
> he, instead of having Army Groups North, Center, and South, put all his
> tanks into "Army Group Blitzkrieg", and follow with two huge flanking
> infantry groups? Might not work. Might even be a stupid idea. But why
> not give it a try?
Remember AH's The Russian Campaign ?
It allowed for a free setup within regions, and if you wanted to move
units between regions you paid a price for it (no attacking in the
first phase) but it fully allowed people to explore the what-if of
putting all the panzers in a drive for Leningrad, left hooking Moscow
or the oilfields in the south or ...
> Why do so many games not only avoid this free-setup philosophy, but
> actively seem to be trending in the opposite direction?
Because developers like to refine their engine for it to become the
ultimate wargame - and so as not to blame one side in this matter :
gamers do tend to jump on a game's a-historical or abstracted features
and point them out as design flaws. I'm also guilty as charged on that
so I can understand developer throwing up their hands in the air,
sighing and mumbling that gamers don't know what they want.
> I mean, are
> wargamers really crying out for *less* ability to re-write history?!?
You'd be amazed. Remember that option in Forge of Freedom which gave
the South an a-historical economy ? It almost caused seizures in some
gamers, while it was entirely optional.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > Don't listen to Gifty he is again shooting in the empty baloon.
>
> I.e. "against Mario" for those who don't know Mariospeak =)
So "empty baloon" is pretty much correct ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
<eddys...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c608bb22-24f2-4345...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I think it depends on the weather, the biorhythm and the serotonin variance
:o)
Chris Merchant
news:MPG.2284cd63742a9dc29899e5@localhost:
> My point here is that if the gamer has control of all the German units
> on the eastern front, then he's effectively *Hitler*, so there's no
> reason he couldn't have rearranged his units as he liked.
>
Dunno, seems to me that often, when it came to the crunch, heads of
state like hitler had more control over the North Minehead by-election
than many heat-of-battle decisions.
I think what SSG are trying to do is provide some interesting
opportunities and varied scenario options here -
1. See it from your local Divisional commanders' POV - christ, lets
follow the orders, boys (historical AO's)
2. I am Manstein and I feel Confident(tm) (German No AO's, Soviet MV AO)
3. No, realli, I am Hitler and I want to win ASAP (German AO's Off,
Soviet MV's ON)
4. No, realli , I am Hitler and I am a sadist (German AO's off; Soviet
Historical AO's ON)
5. Ach, vatever, give zem a kleinen chance.. (German AO's off, Soviet OA
MV AO's ON)
6. I have received Important Information from Mother Mary and I am still
recovering ( and my god these Wayfarers were not cheap); Gott Mit all of
Us ...( both sides have MV AO's) [I think this will be my favourite...]
etc...
Bonus! Bonus! Select 'No AO's' and the original argument disappears in
a puff of logic (apologies to the guy that developed Logic, which I
believe is a really cool music application, or a lentil based Soup
Product produced in SE Asia).
Cheers Chris
And for those of us taking it all far too seriously:
http://merchant.on.net/Frenzied%20Bricks%20-%20Which%20Way%20To%20The%
20Front%20(Finale).mp3
(you had to be there...)
MarkS
> In article <184f5f8d-00cb-47b9-8857-2ba3b181841a@
> 56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
> players more and more control (within the practical limitations of the
> real-world situation), and removing control to chase the historical
> results.
>
> At one pole, we arrive at a "game" that's really just a movie of the
> historical operation, and the "player" essentially watches the battle
> unfold using the trappings of the simulation.
>
> At the other pole, the player is allowed to freely re-write history.
>
> I must prefer the latter. But KHARKOV seems more like the former, at
> least in terms of design direction.
>
> But everything here centers on the question, "What level of command is
> being simulated by the player?" And KHARKOV seems a bit conflicted. If
> the player is Stalin or STAVKA, then these "AO" restrictions are
> ridiculous. But if the player *isn't* Stalin or STAVKA, then he does
> seem to have an overly vast slate of units under his command.
>
> Which is it?
I think that one thing being overlooked is that these AOs are actual
limitations on commanders fighting in battles. Once set, the formations
assigned AOs generally have to follow them. So it's not an artificial
limitation, but a real command limitation.
According to what SSG have said about the system, the player picks AO
variants; they aren't always the same. So the player does play somewhat the
role of STAVKA in setting up these AO variants. Once set, the player puts
on the hat of the generals carrying out the plans within STAVKAs framework.
So I'm not sure there's any conceptual problem with this system. The game
is only 16 turns long, and in that short time period I don't see any
realistic way all the logistical and planning resources could be altered to
do anything but carry out the plan and see it succeed or fail.
As for Patton, he personally didn't change his AO. Ike apparently did it,
giving him a new AO. I don't believe that Patton could've pulled this move
on his own recognizance or, once given the new AO that he could've abandoned
it for something else. Were there a Bulge scenario, I'm sure that allowance
would be made for Patton's AO (though he'd just arrive as a reinforcement
anyway). At Kharkov though, it doesn't appear that this kind of situation
would arise; it's beyond the scope of this scenario.
Were AO's and their function purely a game device, I too would be leary of
them. But given their real world existence, I don't see why wishing them
not to exist is so enticing. In real life, you did have to make a plan,
with "rollbahns" and the like. Only after success or failure of the plan
would any AOs change, and SSG have said that after time the AOs are relaxed,
too.
Now, that's all theoretically speaking. Only playing the system could one
tell if the AO's are realistic in practice. It's possible that some very
unrealistic things could occur, and while we can guess at it, we can't
really know until we see it.
Just some thoughts to ponder with the rest of it.
Mark
Giftzwerg
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Why do so many games not only avoid this free-setup philosophy, but
> > actively seem to be trending in the opposite direction?
>
> Because developers like to refine their engine for it to become the
> ultimate wargame - and so as not to blame one side in this matter :
> gamers do tend to jump on a game's a-historical or abstracted features
> and point them out as design flaws. I'm also guilty as charged on that
> so I can understand developer throwing up their hands in the air,
> sighing and mumbling that gamers don't know what they want.
I think they've lost sight of the fact that one of the most enjoyable
aspects of wargaming is building that perfect setup and trying it out.
C'mon, guys, the fun of model railroading is 90% in building the
layouts, constructing and painting the model trains, and exploring the
history of railroading through modeling and simulation. But wargame
designers seem to increasingly allow us only to watch the pre-built
trains go round and round on the layout they supply. Oh, we can run
them faster, or slower, or maybe down a different track ... but that's
only 10$ of the fun.
> > I mean, are
> > wargamers really crying out for *less* ability to re-write history?!?
>
> You'd be amazed. Remember that option in Forge of Freedom which gave
> the South an a-historical economy ? It almost caused seizures in some
> gamers, while it was entirely optional.
I see this as a different matter, though. The facts surrounding the
southern economy weren't really controlled by the leadership of the
Confederacy - especially in the period before there even *was* a
Confederacy. So as a practical matter, they couldn't really just point
to a city and say, "put some cannon factories there," or "convert these
cotton plantations to gunpowder production." They could have *started*
new initiatives along these lines, surely, and a great many games allow
this without changing the south in the antebellum reality.
But they *did* have direct, complete, and meaningful control of how
their forces would be organized, who would lead them, and where they
would be employed.
Leave the east almost open and gamble everything on an invasion of Ohio?
Stupid, probably - but they could have tried it. Scrape up every man,
gun, and horse and wager everything on a wild lunge at Washington?
Little chance of success - but they could have taken a shot.
So a design that gives the Confederate player more production or a
bigger economy can only be attributed to play balance, and dismissed as
ahistorical. But giving the southern player the ability to place his
armies as he chooses - instead of locking them into their historical
"AO" - is something I think most gamers would get behind.
Giftzwerg
re...@newsgroup.please says...
> > But everything here centers on the question, "What level of command is
> > being simulated by the player?" And KHARKOV seems a bit conflicted. If
> > the player is Stalin or STAVKA, then these "AO" restrictions are
> > ridiculous. But if the player *isn't* Stalin or STAVKA, then he does
> > seem to have an overly vast slate of units under his command.
> >
> > Which is it?
>
> I think that one thing being overlooked is that these AOs are actual
> limitations on commanders fighting in battles. Once set, the formations
> assigned AOs generally have to follow them. So it's not an artificial
> limitation, but a real command limitation.
Ah, but that's the driving force behind my asking "what level of command
is being simulated." And my suspicion is that even in a hidebound
organization like the Red Army[1], the AO of a *brigade* wasn't set by
Stalin himself, but by exactly the level of command being simulated by
the player - probably even *lower* than the player. In other words,
you're forced to abide by limitations that realistically speaking you
would have set *yourself*.
And this goes far beyond what's usual in a game system. For example,
consider Panther's HIGHWAY TO THE REICH, specifically the "Nijmegen"
scenario. What level of command is being simulated?
Essentially, the player is General Gavin. His objectives are dictated
by higher authority, as are the drop zones - Field Marshal Montgomery
came up with those, so he's locked into them. But *Montgomery* doesn't
draw lines on the map delineating where the companies and platoons of
the 504th Parachute Regiment can or can't be used - it's up to
Gavin/ThePlayer to figure out how to maneuver these men from where they
start to someplace that will achieve the objectives. If he wants to
employ them as they were used historically, he's free to do that. If he
wants to try something completely different, then within the constraints
what the 504th could really do, he's free to do so. If he achieves his
objectives, he wins.
The point is that if a "Nijmegen" scenario is to include a preplanned AO
for the 504th, *the player needs to draw it*, not the scenario designer.
[1] And absolutely not the Wehrmacht.
Giftzwerg
re...@newsgroup.please says...
[My newsreader / server cut off this part of MarkS's message at first]
> As for Patton, he personally didn't change his AO. Ike apparently did it,
> giving him a new AO. I don't believe that Patton could've pulled this move
> on his own recognizance or, once given the new AO that he could've abandoned
> it for something else. Were there a Bulge scenario, I'm sure that allowance
> would be made for Patton's AO (though he'd just arrive as a reinforcement
> anyway). At Kharkov though, it doesn't appear that this kind of situation
> would arise; it's beyond the scope of this scenario.
Well, everyone agrees that Eisenhower was responsible for setting the
objectives for Patton and 3rd Army, so the question is whether Ike or
Omar Bradley got involved in setting the actual limits of CCA 4th
Armored.
This. Game. Does. Exactly. That.
It "pre-micromanages" exactly what you can do with units which are
*ridiculously* below the level of command being simulated. It
presupposes a slavish adherence to grease-pencil marks made on the map
three days ago by the very person who wants to change things *now*.
This gets back to what I was arguing in the first part of this post. If
the level of command being simulated here (in our example) is "George
Patton," then the game should set out Patton's historical starting
point, and define for him what objectives need to be achieved, and then
leave it up to the player to determine what 10th Armored needs to get up
to in order to win the battle.
In reality, this is exactly how it worked. Eisenhower said something to
the effect of, "George, I need you to attack along these lines, relieve
Bastogne, and counter the southern arm of the German attack." What
Eisenhower or Bradley *didn't* do is pass out a neat set of maps firmly
delineating where this or that *battalion* could or couldn't go.
In other words, Eisenhower sets the AO of the Third Army, but
Patton/ThePlayer sets the AO of his infantry regiments.
> Were AO's and their function purely a game device, I too would be leary of
> them. But given their real world existence, I don't see why wishing them
> not to exist is so enticing. In real life, you did have to make a plan,
> with "rollbahns" and the like. Only after success or failure of the plan
> would any AOs change, and SSG have said that after time the AOs are relaxed,
> too.
Everyone has heard the old saw, "No plan survives contact with the
enemy." Except in a game like this. Then the plan grimly hangs on,
clinging to malign life, trumping any stillborn attempt at innovation.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <3516b303-b170-4edc-ac0a-829cfa22d5c0
>
> > You'd be amazed. Remember that option in Forge of Freedom which gave
> > the South an a-historical economy ? It almost caused seizures in some
> > gamers, while it was entirely optional.
>
> I see this as a different matter, though. The facts surrounding the
> southern economy weren't really controlled by the leadership of the
> Confederacy - especially in the period before there even *was* a
> Confederacy. So as a practical matter, they couldn't really just point
> to a city and say, "put some cannon factories there," or "convert these
> cotton plantations to gunpowder production." They could have *started*
> new initiatives along these lines, surely, and a great many games allow
> this without changing the south in the antebellum reality.
As I saw it, it was a what-if along the lines of what would have
happened if the South had a comparable economy to the North given an
Alien Space Bats intervention in the early 1800's
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Chris Merchant
news:MPG.2284ef4a78503209899ea@localhost:
> Everyone has heard the old saw, "No plan survives contact with the
> enemy." Except in a game like this. Then the plan grimly hangs on,
> clinging to malign life, trumping any stillborn attempt at innovation
Phew...
I'd suggest that it's SSG that are trying their hand at innovation in a
field where few have ventured.
Each AO, and that includes the 9+ mystery variants, can expand/warp from
the beginning of the game onward, depending on the scenario designers
intent, number of turns and objectives captured/lost (and these are not
necessarily obvious objective hexes, and certainly are hidden from the
opponent).
This is a dynamic thing - some a formation's AO's have priority over
others, so nothing is clear cut once the battle has begun.
I've found it tense stuff so far.
Depends on what you want out of a historical wargame I guess.
cheers Chris
Bloodstar
> variance :o)
Ignorant fools :o))))
Buy books and enlighten youself! :o)))
Seriously Vinzenzo you are boring with your non argument stuff, I would have
understood that if you had just made an amputation of brain. :o)))
Mario
Giftzwerg
bringitony...@merchant.on.net says...
> > Everyone has heard the old saw, "No plan survives contact with the
> > enemy." Except in a game like this. Then the plan grimly hangs on,
> > clinging to malign life, trumping any stillborn attempt at innovation
>
> Phew...
>
> I'd suggest that it's SSG that are trying their hand at innovation in a
> field where few have ventured.
It's hardly "innovation" to employ enforced adherence to the historical
plan; the old AH boardgame FRANCE 1940 forced players to adopt the
suicidal French plan and just game out the disaster way back in 1970.
> Each AO, and that includes the 9+ mystery variants, can expand/warp from
> the beginning of the game onward, depending on the scenario designers
> intent, number of turns and objectives captured/lost (and these are not
> necessarily obvious objective hexes, and certainly are hidden from the
> opponent).
And on this point, they're to be commended. A merely mortal design
house would have stuck AOs on the one scenario and told the players to
enjoy.
> Depends on what you want out of a historical wargame I guess.
A military simulator instead of a 1970s-era boardgame simulator?
Giftzwerg
@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I see this as a different matter, though. The facts surrounding the
> > southern economy weren't really controlled by the leadership of the
> > Confederacy - especially in the period before there even *was* a
> > Confederacy. So as a practical matter, they couldn't really just point
> > to a city and say, "put some cannon factories there," or "convert these
> > cotton plantations to gunpowder production." They could have *started*
> > new initiatives along these lines, surely, and a great many games allow
> > this without changing the south in the antebellum reality.
>
> As I saw it, it was a what-if along the lines of what would have
> happened if the South had a comparable economy to the North given an
> Alien Space Bats intervention in the early 1800's
As is well-known, Alien Space Bats are positive *fiends* for play
balance.
Chris Merchant
news:MPG.2284f9593ada95179899eb@localhost:
> A military simulator instead of a 1970s-era boardgame simulator?
>
then we should be in different news groups.
This is a Game.
cheers
Giftzwerg
bringitony...@merchant.on.net says...
> > A military simulator instead of a 1970s-era boardgame simulator?
> >
>
> then we should be in different news groups.
>
> This is a Game.
You missed the point. SSG is all about porting military reality to a
boardgame design - replete with hexes, turns, charts, and dice - and
then making the boardgame work on a PC.
My position is to just skip that unnecessary interim step. Boardgames
were designed in the first place because the only tools you could put in
a little cardboard box were dice, paper counters, and cardboard maps.
But that's no longer true. So forget all the trappings of boardgames.
Go from military reality to the PC directly and build it so it makes
sense.
That still gives you a *game*, just not one with all the garbage that
crept in during the days where we needed little hexes and turns.
Bloodstar
better than empty baboon - eddy. ;)))
ERutins
entirely off, thus allowing you to play Kharkov just like you played
Italy or Normandy or Korsun and no, it doesn't mean the game was not
designed with that in mind. However, if you would like to get a
better sense of another little-explored aspect of command that your
historical counterparts did have to deal with and which did explain
some of the slow reactions and apparently "boneheaded" things they
did, then give it a try and as Chris pointed out, you can mix and
match to get the degree you want for each side.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
> I'm surprised at the resistance to this, given that it can be turned
> entirely off, thus allowing you to play Kharkov just like you played
> Italy or Normandy or Korsun and no, it doesn't mean the game was not
> designed with that in mind.
It's just a discussion. We know it can be turned off.
But it's important, feedback-wise, for developers to how their customers
feel about features in the new product, no? Don't you *want* to hear
this?
ERutins
Ok, I was getting the impression that it was a bit more than that to
you.
> But it's important, feedback-wise, for developers to how their customers
> feel about features in the new product, no? Don't you *want* to hear
> this?
Of course, it's just that it was coming across differently from where
I'm sitting, thanks to the wonderful telepathic (not) abilities of the
internet as far as clear communication.s
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
28dfcd...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com
says...
> > It's just a discussion. We know it can be turned off.
>
> Ok, I was getting the impression that it was a bit more than that to
> you.
Well, and - don't get me wrong - I'll *surely* buy this game the moment
it appears; I haven't missed an SSG game since ... maybe never. I might
own all of them. RUN 5, baby.
So what we've got here is an industry-leading development house
releasing a new version of a system with a new feature. One of their
longtime customers is politely (and quite reasonably, I think)
expressing some reservations about whether this "new" feature is really
as new - or as useful - as the designers assert.
I'd argue that the "AO limitation with release" has been around since I
started playing wargames. I literally can't remember all the games that
ruled something along the lines of "BEF cannot move until von Kluck
crosses a green hexside" or "German units on Map B cannot cross onto Map
A until the Russian forces <blah-blah>."
With respect to the "Mystery Variant" construct, however, I've long been
on record suggesting that this is not only a *brilliant* solution to the
question of how to meaningfully introduce a *real* FOW element into a
wargame, but that it's a powerful feature that can really *only* be
introduced through the power of the PC to handle piles of data silently
and invisibly. This has always been an unmitigated benefit and any game
that features it will meet with nothing but approval from my quarter.
> > But it's important, feedback-wise, for developers to how their customers
> > feel about features in the new product, no? Don't you *want* to hear
> > this?
>
> Of course, it's just that it was coming across differently from where
> I'm sitting, thanks to the wonderful telepathic (not) abilities of the
> internet as far as clear communication.s
Yeah, but it's kinda hard for me to say, "I'm not so sure about this new
'feature', guys" without typing words to that effect.
Bloodstar
I agree. In fact Daniel McBride makes that historical scenarios with TOAW
and pays great attention to historical authencity.
OK, it is quite foolish to play one side that is already doomed in the
beginning but Russians played into Germans hand at Kharkov in May 1942.
Glantz made really interesting book with day to day operations, excellent
OOB etc...
What we must understand here is that Hitler and Halder didn't even used all
forces that they had at their disposal and that they prepared for Blau.
So this in fact can be good recreation of some historical situation. I
didn't read everything about this game but I am certain that SSG will put in
enough flesh to the game and make it fun no matter historical restrictions.
So that would be like teaching history.
As it is a game I am also sure that Soviet victory will be also possible -
something in that vain or less disastrous defeat etc...
Maro
Briarroot
Exactly. Eisenhower through his Chief of Staff, Beedle Smith (because
Ike didn't attend the crucial meeting), *asked* Patton what he could do
to help, and Patton's memorable response was that he could attack with 3
divisions in 48 hours. Smith and Bradley were more than a little
incredulous but despite their skepticism, they gave Patton the green
light. They had no clue precisely *how* Patton intended to accomplish
that feat, or which of his units would be assigned which axis of advance
or which roads, etc. They just said, "GO!" And he did.
--
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation
because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize
the nation because the people are so rich." - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Andy Brown
"Bloodstar" <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote
> OK, it is quite foolish to play one side that is already doomed in the
> beginning but Russians played into Germans hand at Kharkov in May 1942.
> Glantz made really interesting book with day to day operations, excellent
> OOB etc...
Which leads to another relevant point.
It's easy enough to set up any number of hypothetical events for tactical
games like Combat Mission because a tactical engagement is such a small
piece of the historical battle.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to set up a balanced CM game between
Chasseurs Ardennais and German recon troops "somewhere in the Ardennes" in
1940 because any such engagement would have played such a minor part in the
overall campaign that its outcome is mostly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if
the Belgian player kicks arse in this small engagement, everybody knows that
ultimately the Wehrmacht prevailed.
Some hypothetical clash between three Army Groups on one side and a dozen or
so Fronts on the other, however, is not so easily historically detached.
You either refight it over European Russia with different start parameters
or you make up some other terrain along the "Red" and "Blue" lines of games
like AH's Blitzkrieg. The latter avoids any "it's not historical" -type
criticism but may miss the whole point of the exercise.
I guess my point is that, if we were talking about tactical level games, we
would not have had such a lengthy discussion about what is or is not
historically appropriate.
And it has been a good discussion. And SSG have done the right thing by
making their shiny new feature optional. But they seem to be thinking that
most wargamers will agree with them and use it. What we're suggesting is
that they may be surprised at the number of people that opt to turn it off.
Cheers,
Andy
Mike Kreuzer
news:fvga8u$gse$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Bloodstar" <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote
>> OK, it is quite foolish to play one side that is already doomed in the
>> beginning but Russians played into Germans hand at Kharkov in May 1942.
>> Glantz made really interesting book with day to day operations, excellent
>> OOB etc...
>
> Which leads to another relevant point.
>
> And it has been a good discussion. And SSG have done the right thing by
> making their shiny new feature optional. But they seem to be thinking
> that most wargamers will agree with them and use it. What we're
> suggesting is that they may be surprised at the number of people that opt
> to turn it off.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
All the discussions here are reasonable ... well many, well some ...
I'm in two minds about optional rules all up (as distinct from optional
other stuff). Part of me thinks that either a rule's important to a design,
or it isn't. Either it works or it doesn't. I don't see the point in
turning off FOW say, cause clearly it's meant to be turned on ... that said
I can't see the opposing point of view. But on this SSG thing the more I
think about it the harder it is to see the other side.
Firstly, let's assume this game's just about Kharkov, and SSG are planning
on abandoning the engine after just the one outing, just like they did with
Battlefront. So there's no need to talk about Patton or Rommel, just
Kharkov. Timoshenko & Paulus. 1942. One day turns.
I don't see anyone arguing that at Kharkov the German's did anything but
shelve Frederikus on day one & start reacting to the Sov offensive, all
under a single unified command (the 6th army). So how can this rule
possibly apply to the German player? Can someone explain that please?
Which leaves the Russians, also with a single unified command under
Timoshenko. But he also did things he couldn't possibly do in this game:
on day one of the campaign (Glantz p 120 if you want to look it up) he
started pulling tank brigades out of the front line & sending them off in a
different direction as a reserve cause he was coming up against stronger
than anticipated German forces. On the very first turn. He didn't ask
Stalin. He didn't reboot the world & turn an optional rule off. He reacted
to one of his subordinates whining that that *his* master plan didn't seem
so crash hot any more. Now if the player was Timoshenko & wanted infantry
units instead ... dzzzzz.
The Russkis screwed up, obviously, but it had nothing to do with sticking
units with preassigned areas of operations. I think SSG have (like someone
else said before) developed a great Montgomery simulator.
Now back to the elephant in the drawing room:
As to learning the lessons of Battlefront, surely one of the main reasons
Battlefront tanked was cause it only had four scenarios ... well this
turkey's only got the one. Why isn't this an upgrade to battlefront? It
looks like a slight improvement to the engine at best, that plus just one
scenario. That's an upgrade right? Can that be explained too please?
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Andy Brown
"Mike Kreuzer" <mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote
> I'm in two minds about optional rules all up (as distinct from optional
> other stuff). Part of me thinks that either a rule's important to a
> design,
> or it isn't. Either it works or it doesn't. I don't see the point in
> turning off FOW say, cause clearly it's meant to be turned on ... that
> said
> I can't see the opposing point of view. But on this SSG thing the more I
> think about it the harder it is to see the other side.
But that's -exactly- the point. You may not see "the other side" but
someone out there will. That's why rules have to be optional.
The moment I hear some game developer say "I'm making the game I've always
wanted to make", I hesitate. It is extremely unlikely that the game
someone's always wanted to make is going to be the game I've always wanted
to play. That's why things need to be optional. You may never understand
why some bozo would want to play without Fog of War but, for whatever
reason, there are people who do.
If you're designing a game purely for personal gratification, you can model
reality any way you like. If you're hoping for commercial success, you have
to appeal to the maximum number of customers. This can only be done, IMO,
with options.
Cheers,
Andy
Mike Kreuzer
>
> "Mike Kreuzer" <mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote
>> I'm in two minds about optional rules all up (as distinct from optional
>> other stuff). Part of me thinks that either a rule's important to a
>> design,
>> or it isn't. Either it works or it doesn't. I don't see the point in
>> turning off FOW say, cause clearly it's meant to be turned on ... that
>> said
>> I can't see the opposing point of view. But on this SSG thing the more I
>> think about it the harder it is to see the other side.
>
> But that's -exactly- the point. You may not see "the other side" but
> someone out there will. That's why rules have to be optional.
>
[snip]
All the rules? Or just the ones that someone hit upon as easy to make
optional way-back-when (like FOW), or just the new rules (like this latest
silliness from SSG)? Or more than that? Or less? Would a game where all
the rules were optional be any better for it? And before you think this is
just reductio ad absurdum I'd raise the example of Forge of Freedom. That
had a hundred and one options, but it was still crap.
This is a tangent, but sure, why not let's take it out for a dance. As I
say I agree with you, let's have optional rules, but there's something
unsatisfying about them I just can't put my finger on it.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Andy Brown
You're right. There are obvious problems with a lot of optional rules, like
balance, or situations where it's hard to find opponents who are willing to
use exactly the same combination of options that you prefer.
Arguably, a game that tries to be all things to all gamers is just as
dubious as one that hardcodes you into design decisions you may not agree
with. I'm sure there's a happy medium but arguments about where it is could
probably go on forever.
I think the unspoken concern with the SSG example is that, optional or not,
this latest rule suggests that SSG design philosophy might be evolving in a
way that many members of this usenet group would take issue with. When
formerly solid developers start experimenting with stuff that causes some of
their most faithful customers to arch their eyebrows, alarm bells should
ring.
Cheers,
Andy
Gregor Whiley
Its good to see so much discussion about a single (optional) game
feature well before the game is released. I would hope that,
regardless of the discussions, people would keep an open mind until
they've actually used it in practice.
What the Area of Operations system does is allow you to get closer to
the historical situation that the battlefield commanders confronted
than our previous systems allowed. Real life commanders faced numerous
constraints with their actual orders and logistics being the most
important.
The AO system explicitly imposes constraints on what you can do. But
before the cries of 'give me wargaming without constraints or give
death!' ring out, remember that there are already plenty of
constraints in a wargame. Victory points are a good example. They are
obviously arbitrary, and they're a very potent mechanism by which the
scenario designer tells you, the player, what to do. The supply
system can be used in the same way, and I freely confess that we've
done this this before and still do it in Kharkov.
The AOs merely make clear what was less explicit before. They should
be thought of as embodying a Staff Officer, who tells you which of
your brilliant command decisions is feasible and which isn't. They
replace what would be tedious system which took account of road
movements, truck locations, supply stockpiles unit boundaries and so
on. Because it is a high level abstraction, it is an imperfect
reflection of reality, but we have many such abstractions in the game.
They are there because they make the game fun and give more or less
the right result.
Now if you want to shoot your staff officer, go right ahead, we give
you the gun to do it. I personally have come down on both sides of
this debate. I insisted on the 'radio' option in our American Civil
War game because I knew that there were some people (like me) who did
not want their brilliant command decisions getting lost or
misunderstood, even though that assuredly happened at the time.
In Kharkov however, I personally find the Staff Officer invaluable. He
tells me what my orders are and what forces I have available and
within those often very broad limits its up to me to do my best. Those
forces that I have available are then much more valuable to me than
might otherwise be the case, because I can't just casually 'borrow' a
couple of divisions from an adjacent formation if I stuff up.
Similarly, my reserve formations are very precious, and commitment of
them is a crucial and nerve wracking decision. In an open slather
system, this distinction is lost.
As for which role is being simulated, well we fudge this issue as I
think all operational level games must. In sense you are making Stalin
level decisions, but in saying that we must remember that Stalin
didn't move regiments and couldn't create roads, or trucks, simply by
decree. So the AO system does remove some of Stalin's god like powers
but rewards you with a much better understanding of the realities
faced by lower level commanders.
The AO system also makes the Mystery Variants work. In essence, at the
start of the battle, both sides have most of their cards on the table,
but are each dealt one or two extra. Obviously, you only know what
your own cards are. This fact greatly reduces the effectivesness of
canned openings and gamey tactics, which greatly increases the
replayability of the game.
We will be using this system in our next game and while I can't tell
you what that is, I can point to a previous game, Korsun Pocket, where
it would have come in very handy. What better way to embody Hitler's
order than to simply prevent the unfortunates in the pocket from
leaving in the first place. Of course, the Mystery Variants could have
Hitler relenting earlier, or much earlier, giving the Soviet player
plenty to think about. Syudents of history can probably think of other
battles where this feature could come in very handy.
Finally, the AOs are only hexes painted on the map in the Editor, with
a few bits of associated data. They are easy to change and we will, as
we always do, listen to feedback.
Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
Dirk Gross
> In article <RDCSj.1$Lv...@newsfe05.lga>, jburn...@yahoo.com says...
>
> But how about designers representing the other extreme once in a while?
> Free setup. Let the player organize his units as he'd like, and - for
> once - come up with his own strategic plan and implement it, soup to
> nuts.
>
> For example, take a hypothetical "Barbarossa" game. Typically, the game
> starts with the Germans / Russian organized as they were in June 1941,
> and the German player starts moving his counters.
>
> But why is the German player stuck with the historical setup? Why can't
> he, instead of having Army Groups North, Center, and South, put all his
> tanks into "Army Group Blitzkrieg", and follow with two huge flanking
> infantry groups? Might not work. Might even be a stupid idea. But why
> not give it a try?
> My point here is that if the gamer has control of all the German units
> on the eastern front, then he's effectively *Hitler*, so there's no
> reason he couldn't have rearranged his units as he liked.
>
>
Pretty much all of the HPS titles, Panzer, Modern, ACW, EAW, Napoleon,
Squad Battles, have editors to create your own scenarios. Essentially
it's just as you described, a "free setup". I've never done it, but a
lot of guys do so and create very interesting hypothetical scenarios.
More than half of the stock scenarios in each game are hypothetical or
variants.
Dirk
Giftzwerg
> > Why do so many games not only avoid this free-setup philosophy, but
> > actively seem to be trending in the opposite direction? I mean, are
> > wargamers really crying out for *less* ability to re-write history?!?
> Pretty much all of the HPS titles, Panzer, Modern, ACW, EAW, Napoleon,
> Squad Battles, have editors to create your own scenarios. Essentially
> it's just as you described, a "free setup". I've never done it, but a
> lot of guys do so and create very interesting hypothetical scenarios.
> More than half of the stock scenarios in each game are hypothetical or
> variants.
Editors are great things. Don't get me wrong.
But they're a terrific pain in the ass to use when all you're looking to
do is whip up a quickie "what-if" based on a scenario. Firstly, most of
them are amazingly user-hostile with respect to interface issues.
Secondly, the documentation is at best pretty weak. Overall, one gets
the sense of a product that just isn't aimed at the casual gamer.
So I'm not convinced that "editors" are a blanket solution to the issue.
Werewolf
> Patton turned his whole army 90 degrees and sailed right out of his AO
> and into a whole different country, in a matter of days, with nothing
> more than a handshake from Omar Bradley. I'm supposed to be a German
> Field Marshal, and I can't do the same thing?
>
Not unless you want to openly defy Hitler or Stalin. German and Russian
commanders hardly had the freedom to act on their own that Allied Army
commanders did.
The AO system seems to me to be set up to reflect the historical
restriction that existed for the Russian and German commanders at all
levels.
Imagine the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. If that was a US Army would
it have been surrounded and annhilated? I think not. The US commander
would have gotten the hell out of dodge if he could have. Von Paulus
didn't have that option. Hitler told him to hold. If he'd disobeyed
Hitler what would his future prospects have been?
MJB
"Werewolf" <nu...@biteme.net> wrote in message
news:VU6Tj.111984$497....@newsfe14.phx...
> Giftzwerg wrote:
>
>> Patton turned his whole army 90 degrees and sailed right out of his AO
>> and into a whole different country, in a matter of days, with nothing
>> more than a handshake from Omar Bradley. I'm supposed to be a German
>> Field Marshal, and I can't do the same thing?
>>
>
> Not unless you want to openly defy Hitler or Stalin. German and Russian
> commanders hardly had the freedom to act on their own that Allied Army
> commanders did.
>
> The AO system seems to me to be set up to reflect the historical
> restriction that existed for the Russian and German commanders at all
> levels.
>
I've been following along this argument a little bit and the one thing I
don't recall being mentioned about AO's is the most basic reason for them.
To insure that the commander has confidence that what is in front of him is
actually the enemy army. And not some friendly unit from an adjacent AO
that has blundered into his field of fire by getting off it's 'reservation'
and being someplace it has no business being. It also simplifies another
real reason for them - to make certain that the supply of gas, food and
ammunition necessary to maintain an army in the field is not impeded by
friendly units outstripping their supply chain.
There is also the issue of communication. IIRC in 'modern' armies specific
radio frequencies are assigned to units in specific AOs simply to allow
better command and control inside the area of operation. And to avoid
cross-channel confusion by everybody chattering over the same bandwidth. So
it might not be easily possible for the spearheading units in two AOs to
easily talk to each other - the only people who can easily communicate are
the HQ staffs for the two respective AOs.
<shrug>
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Patton turned his whole army 90 degrees and sailed right out of his AO
> > and into a whole different country, in a matter of days, with nothing
> > more than a handshake from Omar Bradley. I'm supposed to be a German
> > Field Marshal, and I can't do the same thing?
> >
>
> Not unless you want to openly defy Hitler or Stalin. German and Russian
> commanders hardly had the freedom to act on their own that Allied Army
> commanders did.
Hitler and Stalin established the AO parameters for Army Groups.
This game paints AO limitations per *regiment*.
> The AO system seems to me to be set up to reflect the historical
> restriction that existed for the Russian and German commanders at all
> levels.
The point, though, is *who sets these restrictions*. If it's the
player, then the game restrictions are ridiculous.
> Imagine the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. If that was a US Army would
> it have been surrounded and annhilated? I think not. The US commander
> would have gotten the hell out of dodge if he could have. Von Paulus
> didn't have that option. Hitler told him to hold. If he'd disobeyed
> Hitler what would his future prospects have been?
OK, but look at the question you're raising. 6th Army, historically,
did not seriously attempt a breakout ... and was wiped out. If I were
designing a "Stalingrad" game, I would allow the German player the
ability to mount a serious relief effort - coupled with a total
commitment of 6th Army to a breakout.
<shrug>
A-historical? Yep. What wargamers would like? Yep.
MarkS
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2286d57a9e54a9e69899f9@localhost...
>> commanders hardly had the freedom to act on their own that Allied Army
>> commanders did.
>
> Hitler and Stalin established the AO parameters for Army Groups.
>
> This game paints AO limitations per *regiment*.
Are you sure of this? Each unit in DotD is a regiment, sometimes a
battalion, so regiment AOs don't seem appropriate. From what I've seen the
AOs seem to be based on divisions at a minimum, and I'd expect larger ones
to be the norm. But I could be misunderstanding all of this.
Werewolf
AO's must apply to regiments and battalions.
It would make no sense otherwise.
What good would an AO for a division be if the regiments and battalions
could run off to where ever they wanted? If that were the case AO's
would be meaningless.
I imagine that whatever the division or higer AO is hex wise is
inherited by all units in the heirarchy below whatever level the AO
exists for.
RE: Gift's claim Hitler and Stalin established the AO parameters for
Army Groups.
In general that is true but there are many instances where both directed
divisions and where they should operate, what their mission should be,
etc. For Hitler think Normandy and the restrictions he put on the
various tank formations there.
Giftzwerg
re...@newsgroup.please says...
> > Hitler and Stalin established the AO parameters for Army Groups.
> >
> > This game paints AO limitations per *regiment*.
>
> Are you sure of this? Each unit in DotD is a regiment, sometimes a
> battalion, so regiment AOs don't seem appropriate. From what I've seen the
> AOs seem to be based on divisions at a minimum, and I'd expect larger ones
> to be the norm. But I could be misunderstanding all of this.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1792281&mpage=1&key=
"On the first turn, the 23rd Tank Brigade has a very restricted AO, as
shown by this screen shot. The area in which the formation is prohibited
from moving is shown in red (and it s almost all of the map)."
But I'm really making a much more general point here; is the "realism"
of a game actually improved by enforcing historical behavior on players?
To my mind, the amount of control a player has over what he can or can't
do is directly tied to the real control his real-world counterpart had.
Consider a hypothetical operational game that deals with the British 1st
Airborne at Arnhem. The only forces the player will have under his
control are the British and Polish paratroops. This suggests to me that
the player is filling the shoes of General Urquart. Thus he should have
the amount of control that Urquart had.
Can he choose the drop zones? Probably not. Higher HQ would have the
final say in where the transport aircraft would be employed. Can he
choose his objectives? Nope. Montgomery picks the objective. So
Urquart's forces land where Montgomery puts them, and his job is to take
Arnhem bridge.
So in game terms, we enforce the drop zones by plopping the British
counters inside them. We enforce the objectives by setting the victory
conditions such that if the player doesn't end up with meaningful
control of the bridge, he loses.
Everything in between the drop zones and the bridge, though, is all up
to Urquart / the player. He decides where his brigades will go into
action. He decides on the timetable. He comes up with the strategic
plan and influences the tactics of his units.
It's *realistic* for Urquart / the player to control where, ultimately,
Frost's Para Battalion will find itself. But I get the feeling that
using this "improved" SSG system, clicking on 2 Para Batt would yield me
a neat set of non-grayed-out hexes which lead from the drop zone to
Arnhem bridge.
This would be more "realistic" than letting General Urquart (IE, me)
decide where I want 2 Para?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual
policy confusion - or perhaps we should say cynicism - of our
politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to
increase supply. They want oil 'independence' but they've declared off
limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace
foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce
greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand.
They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the
profits from that investment. And these folks want to be *President*?"
- Wall Street Journal
Big Salad
[a good example]
For me in particular, because I just happen to be winding up my first
attempt at the Market Garden scenario in Battlefront.
> This would be more "realistic" than letting General Urquart (IE, me)
> decide where I want 2 Para?
>
From a simple "realism" standpoint, is it realistic to let the modern
player *not* send Frost sprinting for the bridge? Urquhart had no idea,
nor could he know, how bad of a strategy this was going to turn out to be.
But rather than focus on "realism" or "historicalness" as the sole
metric, I think the better question is "what improves or ruins the game?"
Force Frost to the bridge, and the remainder of the game is about trying
to solve the same problems Urquhart actually faced. This may be the
game that, at least some of us players some of the time, actually want
to play. Without that constraint, is the optimal move to defend the
drop zones and then fall back on the river for evacuation? Would such a
scenario still make a good game?
And how about if you are playing the Germans? Does the game remain
balanced or fun for you if the "smart AI" realizes the optimal strategy
is not to even fight, but to start trying to get back across the Rhine
on day 1?
The questions are rhetorical, but my own answer would be "all of the
above." Ultimately, I would like a game where I can force historical
opening moves, or not, or not even know whether my opponent is going to
play historically or not.
And from this standpoint, I have no complaint about the new SSG feature.
By allowing it to be variable (both with time and from scenario variant
to variant), editable and (most importantly) optional, I just can't see
it causing any problems.
Giftzwerg
big....@hotmail.com says...
> For me in particular, because I just happen to be winding up my first
> attempt at the Market Garden scenario in Battlefront.
So am I. Whatta coincidence.
I just reloaded BATTLEFRONT to give it a sort of revisit.
> > This would be more "realistic" than letting General Urquart (IE, me)
> > decide where I want 2 Para?
> From a simple "realism" standpoint, is it realistic to let the modern
> player *not* send Frost sprinting for the bridge? Urquhart had no idea,
> nor could he know, how bad of a strategy this was going to turn out to be.
>
> But rather than focus on "realism" or "historicalness" as the sole
> metric, I think the better question is "what improves or ruins the game?"
>
> Force Frost to the bridge, and the remainder of the game is about trying
> to solve the same problems Urquhart actually faced. This may be the
> game that, at least some of us players some of the time, actually want
> to play. Without that constraint, is the optimal move to defend the
> drop zones and then fall back on the river for evacuation? Would such a
> scenario still make a good game?
To my mind, though, it's a no-brainer; let the player do what they want
to do. If the game is robust enough - IE, it has all the historical
parameters accurately modeled - then better strategies and tactics
should yield a better result than history. And wild ideas (like mine)
should yield questionable - maybe disastrous - outcomes.
Heck, why not let Urquart lunge at the bridge with the whole division?
If the game is modeled appropriately, this strategy should yield results
that are in line with reasonable expectations about WW2 combat.
Abandoning the drop zones would have meant a terrible supply problem,
and a player who does this should suffer badly. But the Germans did,
historically, overrun the drop zones and the British were in big trouble
anyhow. So why not let the player experiment with a hell-bent-for-
leather assault on Arnhem bridge? Why gray-out this choice?
Remember the Klingon-Attack-Wedge? In an "Arnhem" scenario in HTTR, my
German opponent pulled out of Arnhem and let me march right in and set
up shop with the whole British 1st Airborne. For days and days of game-
time, he let me sit there (stewing...) and quietly amassed all the
remnants of two SS panzer divisions - and every other *landser* at his
disposal - into a single, neatly coordinated attack. When he was
prepared, he let me have it with both barrels.
Ultimately, I think I "won" that game. But why would any wargame
designer *prohibit* my opponent's strategy? Why gray it out from the
get-go? *Couldn't* Bittrich / Model have massed their forces in a huge,
fairly coherent attack - instead of committing units piecemeal, as was
the historical German behavior?
> And how about if you are playing the Germans? Does the game remain
> balanced or fun for you if the "smart AI" realizes the optimal strategy
> is not to even fight, but to start trying to get back across the Rhine
> on day 1?
<shrug>
All this would mean is that the nature of the challenge would change,
and the new reality would be to cement a strategic victory (preventing
capture of Arnhem bridge) into a decisive victory (destroying an elite
enemy division).
> The questions are rhetorical, but my own answer would be "all of the
> above." Ultimately, I would like a game where I can force historical
> opening moves, or not, or not even know whether my opponent is going to
> play historically or not.
Fortunately, it's clear that SSG has *a priori* understood the
reservations some gamers will have with a restrictive game environment,
and allowed us to do a perfectly obvious thing; just turn it off. Thus
is something that might have been an impediment to purchase (for some)
converted into merely an academic discussion of game design. Well done,
SSG.
Finish your new game. Here's my fifty bucks.
[Indeed, if I'm reading Chris Merchant's somewhat cryptic post
correctly, it seems like they've build a configuration ability where a
*really* hidebound army (Soviet) could be under the AO limitations,
while a more innovative force (Wehrmacht) might be free of them. Well
done, SSG.]
> And from this standpoint, I have no complaint about the new SSG feature.
> By allowing it to be variable (both with time and from scenario variant
> to variant), editable and (most importantly) optional, I just can't see
> it causing any problems.
Me, neither. But not every designer out there is as sharp as the boys
at SSG ... and some of them think they are. So call my quibbling here a
pre-emptive strike at somebody who thinks he knows better than SSG and
builds such an "improvement" that can't be turned-off.
Gregor Whiley
Just to clarify, the Area of Operations applies to a formation, and
restricts all units belonging to that formation to operating within
that area. Most units in Kharkov are regiments, some specialised units
are battalions. However, within that area, you can move any regiment
wherever you like.
I chose the Soviet Tank Corps as an example because I wanted to
illustrate the varying methods by which they could be released, either
by taking objectives or the passage of time. As I said before, 6th
Army Units, which include 3rd and 23rd Panzer Divisions can go from
Belgororod, to south of Krasnograd and south east past Izyum, which
represents a pretty large scope for operations.
When we look at a battle like Kharkov, we aim firstly to recreate the
setting and fundamental forces that shaped the historical battle, and
I think our new system has done our best job yet of doing that. Within
that setting, there is still tremendous scope for variability. In an
otherwise close game against Ian Trout I moved a single infantry
regiment, which fatally weakened my entire defensive structure in
front of Kharkov and allowed the bolshevik hordes to pour through and
capture the city. The only upside was that, being already on the
Russian Front, no further punishment was available for my blunder.
Both sides in Kharkov will find themselves attacking and defending
simultaneously, so getting the balance right can be very tricky. This,
game, more than any others of ours, has also illustrated the critical
nature of the immediate counter-attack in defense. By far the best way
to rid yourself of those pesky Russian Tank Corps is to have
uncommitted forces, together with loads of available artillery, so you
can clobber them as they advance into contested ground and before they
can dig in. Easier said than done, of course.