yaquinto
richard pluzak
Who out there is, was or wasn't a yaquinto fan?
Primarily regarding the 88, Panzer and Armour theatres. I was introduced to
this system some 10 years ago, and have not been able to find a more
realistic simulation since. Simultaneous movement was the realism
breakthrough i didn't know was possible. After playing Yaq for several
years, some comparison playing was done with Squad Leader. One game was
enough to junk Avalon Hill, although the documentation was excellent.
In fact, the system lends itself beautifully to computerization, and the
ultimate pinnacle of gaming, "hidden movement" was realized. Once you've
played " simultaneous hidden movement", nothing touches the challenge except
for live paintball. Being new to usenet and just into this .board group and
email, introduces the concept of multi-player gaming unbelievably well over
this medium.
In fact, with just one "referee", and not even invoking 'computerized
sighting' it would be possible to stage an international event "live". The
possibilities are staggering.
The participants would all have the same map board layout, either from the
actual game, or one that was created. (possibly from actual photos of the
terrain). The moves would be emailed to the ref, who would actually be
neutral, and in turn would return actual sighting/hearing data to the
individual player or teams.
It would thus be possible for the first time to actually examine "what might
have been, if Patton had been allowed to continue after "the real enemy -
the communists". The Americans against the Soviets using 1945 weapons in
Russian terrain. The individual units are so detailed in all respects e.g.
thickness of armour, angle of incidence, velocity at point of impact,
caliber, accuracy etc, that some long unanswered questions might be resolved.
To really top it off, teams actually from the USA, Germany, Britain, USSR
and even Italy, using their own countries period AFV's and Infantry, could
actually face off on the battlefield. Even the French and Polish hatred of
the Nazis is represented, besides including crack SS troops.
I've never seen another gaming system so historically accurate as what the
Yaq guys created. And one that lends itself so gorgeously to email.
Naturally, with the Chinese being the only communists left in the world,
some of the emotional incentive may not be there, but the possibility of
playing full 'hidden movement' with ALL options can be a reality.
In fact, maybe in jest, there are 8 Canadian "Yaq" players who say they
could beat any American, Soviet, German or British Team in any theatre
using whatever mixed bag of Allied, German or Soviet equipment is available.
If anyone knows of the wherabouts of a more historically accurate,
realistically simulated, tactical gaming system let me know. see you on the
field.
-rp-
Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025
I've always liked the Yaquinto Panzer/Armor system, but not with the near-
religious fervor of Richard Pluzak. Haven't played in years, but kept
the games around as possibilities. They'd make a good PBM or PBeM system
as he suggests, though I wouldn't want to organize it around the grandiose
and nationalistic lines suggested. The system does have flaws that I remember,
though it's been to long for me to completely cite chapter and verse. I do
remember that the rules for how many hits you get with guns that fire multiple
shots per turn didn't match my calculations based on single shot probabilities.
If I remember right the tables made the number of hits too low. There were
also some oddnesses in the armor angle tables and the point values for
vehicles.
The emphasis is clearly on vehicle and weapon specs and not on the human
element of morale and similar factors. This is a matter of taste whether you
like it or not. For tank vs tank actions I like Panzer/Armor/88. For infantry
fights (the majority of WWII combat if not of gamed WWII combat) I prefer
the original Squad Leader, warts and all. Mixed tank/infantry actions at the
one tank and one squad per counter level are a tougher call.
I don't know of a better system for tank boardgames at the scale of the
Yaquinto games, but in general I prefer doing tactical WWII with miniatures
over boardgames. Various sets of miniatures rules I've played have struck me
as being more fun and in at least some ways more realistic than the Yaq games.
Unfortunately most are club rules played at conventions or locally and not
published sets.
Ed Allen (al...@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
Paul J. Mech
>
> I don't know of a better system for tank boardgames at the scale of the
> Yaquinto games,
I'm rather partial to _Panzer_Pranks_ ... :-)
Paul J. Mech deadpup.UUCP!paul
oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul
richard pluzak
ed, your point about infantry play with squad leader being more realistic
than Yaquinto's implementation is interesting.
without commenting in that regard, what was a real revelation with the
Yaquinto system was 'Simultaneous movement'. Prior to Yaq, all the games
designers seemed to be obsessed with enhancing the 'alternate movement"
system. This system certainly is enjoyable and lets one handle large numbers
of units, but it is inherently unrealistic. It was never apparent to me
until Yaq SM (simultaneous movement) made me look at life from a different
perspective.
i'd be curious as to how many people participating in this newsgroup have
ever played SM? What other games are there that embody this method?
in summary, SM requires far fewer counters to manage, yet the heightened
realism is much more enjoyable. The absolute beauty of SM surfaces when
hidden movement is used. However, employing hidden when everyone is
eyeballing the board is impossible. As a consequence, this aspect was never
played during normal gaming and died of obscurity.
enter email. now it's possible to play SM with hidden for the first time,
but the players can be located anywhere there is a usenet feed. thus, an
aspect of gaming totally lost on practically everyone, can now be
resurrected.
ideally, a graphics version of 88/panzer/armour would be fabulous (totally
getting away from primitive hex mapboards), but the present boards are
completely playable with SM hidden. Its like discovering gaming all over
again.
btw, the multiple hit table works perfectly well. the closer you are, the
better chance of landing more hits, and this ability drops off quite quickly
with distance and 1945 iron (even with the same trajectories as 1990
weapons-computer assisted as they are).
i.e if you want to experience something new and really find out if you are
half the tactician you might consider yourself to be, SM Hidden will prove
beyond a doubt if you have what it takes.
in other words, mediocre players get wasted fast.
Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025
Yaquinto did not originate simultaneous movement. SPI had at least a
dozen SiMove games in the early seventies before Yaquinto existed. They
used it in a lot of the tank platoon per counter descendants of PanzerBlitz.
These include Kampfpanzer, Desert War, Red Star/White Star II, and some others
I don't remember. CA, my first S&T subscription game, # 31 if I remember
right, around 1973, applied SiMove to WWII night surface navals.
Sniper and Patrol had it in man-to-man infantry. Tank was the first SiMove
game at the scale of Panzer/Armor/88. A good game for it's era (ca.1974) but
much more primitive in the combat resolution than the Yaquinto games. Frigate
had SiMove in age of sail navals, etc, etc. Battleline used
it in Air Force and Dauntless and in Wooden Ships and Iron Men, All later
sold to AH. Battleline's design team, Steve Peek and Craig Taylor later
joined with this guy Yaquinto who was already in the printing business, in
founding Yaquinto Games. It was this in-house printing connection that allowed
them to make their games so component heavy, with those die cut terrain pieces
and big counters in large numbers and all of the weapons cards.
A lot of the early SiMove games weren't well received by a fair chunk of gamers
for a collection of reasons.
1) A lot of people don't like the extra work of plotting movement, particularly
with the cumbersome, list every hex's code number system that SPI started with.
2) Some people don't like the limit on the number of playable units that you
have with plotted movement.
3) The SPI design staff was enamored with trying to reflect command control
difficulties with a clumsy panic rule, where you rolled a D6 looked up a list
of numbers on a table by cross indexing with your command control level and
then killed or randomized the movement plot of all units that sat on a hex with
the last digit on that list. Weird pointless moves occured when your units
panicked and the hex number basis meant that you had wierd groupings and the
attachment to the six sided die roll meant that you actually had probability
density variations where sitting on certain rows of hexes made you safer from
panic than other rows of hexes. Much of the stupidity can be alleviated if you
just have the units subject to panic sit still or randomly run either towards
the nearest enemy or directly away. More can be fixed by using a ten sided die
rolled for the number of times of the command control level, with each roll
being a hex last digit affected. If you are willing to make a few more rolls,
you can do better by rolling each unit for panic, with the same kind of system,
panic level 4 = 40% etc.
A lot of games that didn't work really well with SiMove had the problem of
movement rates that were too high. If you can move more than a few hexes
between updates when you can assess the situation, all sorts of strange things
happen because of the delay in your ability to respond to what you see. When
modifying a game for simultaneous movement, consider breaking up the movement
phase to two or more parts, possibly with allowances for fire after each one,
suitably reduced in effect or kept apart by reload considerations. We had
great success with a Richtofen's War variant with quartered movement phases and
halved fire phases that was played SiMove.
Hidden movement is a separate consideration from SiMove. I really like playing
hidden movement games when the opportunity arises. I've played in some great
refereed hidden movement Squad Leader games with two sets of the game. The
trick is getting a referee. I've refereed a lot of hidden movement games, more
than I've played in, more with miniatures than boardgames, because it's usually
more fun to ref miniatures than to ref a boardgame. There's more to do than
decide LOS questions and describe combat results.
The ideal for a computerized tactical tank game would probably be something
with no hexgrid, with free movement instead and actual target angle/armor
penetration calulations built in, a simple orders interface, hidden movement,
and either unit by unit sequential, simove, or maybe even continuous action
with the player as formation commander issuing commands and the individual
tanks moved and fired by programmed automatons, with due consideration for the
training level, morale, and personalities of the individual tank commanders and
crews modifying how your orders are implemented. Give the player/C.O. a
tanker's eye view and the choice of working unbuttoned to see well but with the
associated risks and you start to really approach the actual decision
environment. Just add in lots of very loud engine noises, gunshots next to
your head, and a robot arm to get you with a cattle prod every time your
command tank gets destroyed and it starts t feel rl. Of course you have to
play for days straight with no more than about 4 hours sleep between games.
:-) :-)
Ed Allen (al...@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
Elliot Wilen
>[a good summary of SiMove games before Yaquinto]
> CA, my first S&T subscription game, # 31 if I remember
>right, around 1973, applied SiMove to WWII night surface navals.
I got CA in the flat box version, and it did not have simultaneous
plotted movement. It might have used command chits or something like
that, or possibly a system in which players moved units alternately.
Dreadnought, which was similar to CA (right down to the cover) did use
a plotted movement system, along with special rules on fleet
maneuvering to cut down the number of ships one needed to plot in
large engagements. While I liked Dreadnought (even though it was a bit
over-abstracted and had some questionable values for WWII ships), it
did have the problem of allowing too much movement between plots. An
engagement between destroyers (which had a high speed and low range)
could get pretty weird.
--Elliot Wilen
Jeff W. Cohen
>play for days straight with no more than about 4 hours sleep between games.
You mean there is another way to play? :-)
>Ed Allen (al...@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
-The Raven
*****************************************************************************
The Preceeding Message was brought to you by:| V: Inconceivable!
|
Jeff Cohen Inc. (all rights reserved). | I: You keep using that word.
br...@cville.umd.edu | I do not think it means what
| you think it means.
|
DISCLAIMER: I said it, I admit it. So What? | --The Princess Bride
******************************************************************************
Raj Wall
a computerized tactical tank game:
>no hexgrid, free movement instead and actual target angle/armor
>penetration calulations built in, a simple orders interface, hidden movement,
>and either unit by unit sequential, simove, or maybe even continuous action
>with the player as formation commander issuing commands and the individual
>tanks moved and fired by programmed automatons, with due consideration for the
>training level, morale, and personalities of the individual tank commanders and
>crews modifying how your orders are implemented. Give the player/C.O. a
>tanker's eye view and the choice of working unbuttoned to see well but with the
>associated risks and you start to really approach the actual decision
>environment. Just add in lots of very loud engine noises, gunshots next to
>your head, and a robot arm to get you with a cattle prod every time your
>play for days straight with no more than about 4 hours sleep between games.
>
You sit in a mock-up box (your tank) and play (as part of your team)
against manned or automated Red forces. The net is worldwide and
allows forces here to train "side by side" with forces in Germany via
the simulation. It even includes A-10 boxes to train integrating air
support. Numerous nodes have been installed at bases in the US and
overseas. I have had an opportunity to "play" - it is a lot of "fun"
(read: noisy and scary - looking through the three viewports as you
drive around you really feel the action) but it would cost you a few
quarters at the arcade!
The simulation has been written up in various public forums - I can
give pointers if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Raj
wa...@csc.ti.com
Greg Givler - Product Assurance
>In article <1990Mar29.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> al...@codon1.UUCP (Edward Allen) writes:
>>[a good summary of SiMove games before Yaquinto]
>> CA, my first S&T subscription game, # 31 if I remember
>>right, around 1973, applied SiMove to WWII night surface navals.
I have Wooden Ships and Iron Men from Avalon Hill and it has simultaneos
movement. This makes for lots of paperwork in a large fleet engagement but
it is still a very simple game. To paraphrase Nelson. "No man can do wrong
if he places his ship next to the enemy."
Greg
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Givler | Q-Link: GregGivler
Analyst - Systems Evaluation Group | CompuServe: Greg Givler 76702,647
Commodore Product Assurance | GEnie: G.Givler
215-431-9100 | The NET: giv...@cbmvax.commodore.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wild Whores couldn't keep me away!" -- George Francisco
"That's Horses, George" -- Matt Sikes -- Alien Nation -- Fox Broadcasting --
===============================================================================
Bob Slaughter
> [...]
>without commenting in that regard, what was a real revelation with the
>Yaquinto system was 'Simultaneous movement'. Prior to Yaq, all the games
>designers seemed to be obsessed with enhancing the 'alternate movement"
>system.
Actually, SPI did a few SiMove games (Sniper, Starforce, Tank) way
before Yaq came on the scene, so it isn't new with them, though they
did stick with it, and the other companies dropped the idea as too unwieldy.
>This system certainly is enjoyable and lets one handle large numbers
>of units, but it is inherently unrealistic. It was never apparent to me
>until Yaq SM (simultaneous movement) made me look at life from a different
>perspective.
>
>i'd be curious as to how many people participating in this newsgroup have
>ever played SM? What other games are there that embody this method?
I find SiMove to be clumsy and slow, and not necessarily more
realsitic, _especially_ at the tactical level. Things are happening,
not so much at the same time, but in a huge number of interdependent
act and react sequences, which is both/neither sequential or
simultaneous. Sim move works better at (but was rarely used in games
covering) operational and strategic levels. One exception was the
original 5 map version of Operation: Crusader from GDW, all si-move,
but _so_ many units.....
>enter email. now it's possible to play SM with hidden for the first time,
>but the players can be located anywhere there is a usenet feed. thus, an
>aspect of gaming totally lost on practically everyone, can now be
>resurrected.
>
Here is one place there is no substitute for SiMove--pbm and pbem
games. Keeping each player's force small makes it go well, yep having
large numbers of players on both sides makes for fun combat. One way
to handle communicatio is the "Comm" order, instead of move or fire,
but that means the command tank had better be hidden while it chats
with the other players...
--
* Bob Slaughter * This space for rent *
* InterNet#1: r...@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Call 1-800-FOR-RENT *
* InterNet#2: Hal...@Pine.Circa.Ufl.Edu * Model Railroading *
* Bitnet: Haldane@UFPine * is Fun!! *
David R Kohr
>CA, my first S&T subscription game, # 31 if I remember
>right, around 1973, applied SiMove to WWII night surface navals.
>Frigate had SiMove in age of sail navals, etc, etc.
_CA_, also one of my earliest wargame acquisitions, used purely sequential
movment; its successor, _Dreadnought_, used plotted simultaneous movement.
I believe that the later game _Frigate_ used pseudo-simultaneous movement:
each side had to pick one type of manuever for each ship (turn, straight,
and others) before the start of the movement phase, but once movement
began, each ship was moved sequentially, and the owning player could
move the ship in any one of several ways which were permitted according
to the original type of manuever chosen for the ship.
As for strategic SiMove games, there's always _Diplomacy_: it wouldn't
be the same without SiMove. There was also a fun little minigame
published by S.P.I. in _Ares_ called _Barbarian_Kings_: you had only
a few stacks of units which could move on any one turn, and you had
to plot their movement in advance. Finally, there's S.P.I.'s
_StarForce_, which used purely simultaneous movement, plus partially
hidden positioning. None of these three are really historical
simulations, however: can anyone think of any strategic-level
historical wargames which use SiMove?
--
David R. Kohr M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory Group 45 ("Radars 'R' Us")
email: D...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (preferred) or KO...@LL.LL.MIT.EDU
phone: (617)981-0775 (work) or (617)527-3908 (home)
David R Kohr
>hidden movement games when the opportunity arises. I've played in some great
>refereed hidden movement Squad Leader games with two sets of the game.
I agree that hidden unit position information is essentially a separate
game feature from simultaneous movement. I've seen basically two
types of position information hiding, one for tactical games and one for
operational and strategic games.
Tactical games generally hide all enemy units save those your own units
can see; this is hard to implement without a referee, although some games,
such as Battleline's (later AH's) _Submarine_, do so admirably well.
Operational and strategic games generally only partially hide enemy units:
you know that enemy units are present in a certain hex, or that enemy units
have passed through a certain hex, but you don't know precisely which units
they are.
This classification scheme for tactical versus operational and strategic
unit hiding makes some sense, given the relative sizes of units being
simulated: at the operational and strategic scales, units are very large
and essentially impossible to conceal completely from the enemy, given
that the enemy is employing a variety of intelligence sources (spies,
observer and reconnaissance units) to locate them; while at the tactical
level, the only intelligence sources are one's own units. Can anyone think
of any games which don't fit well into this scheme?
On a related note, I'm going to be starting up a game of GDW's
double-blind _Descent_Into_Hell:_Operation_Market-Garden_ soon. Has
anyone tried any of the other games in this series? What about
experiences with other double-blind games? Double-blind seems like such
a good concept to me, but it hasn't proven very successful thus far.
Paul J. Mech
>
> Dreadnought, which was similar to CA (right down to the cover) did use
> a plotted movement system,
> An
> engagement between destroyers (which had a high speed and low range)
> could get pretty weird.
It's been many years since I played Dreadnought, and this is from a
memory some 10 years old, so please forgive any inaccuracies. Likewise,
keep in mind that this is in game context, so strange thing, as mentioned
above, could, and did, happen.
My opponent and I were playing a large fleet engagement scenario attempting
to simulate what fleet planners who didn't forsee the the full effects of
aircraft carriers anticipated for WWII in the Pacific. My opponent, the
Japaneese, had me outclassed and outranged when it came to large battleships.
We manuvered a bit, trying to cap the "T" on each other, while all the time
my opponent tried to keep my fleet at a preferred range band. I had enough
light forces (DD squadrons) to choke a horse, and approached the opposing
battleship line (which was in line bow to stern) in a line abrest due to
impatience in manuvering and general frustration at not being able to do
anything.
I plotted what would amount to be a suicide charge, my opponent plotted
a turn that cut accross the bow of my battleship line. As I started to
execute my plot, my opponent let forth a strange noise that seemed to
combine dispare and mirth. Assume the following line to be a row of hexes
and for '-' to represent a battleship and '/' to be a destroyer squadron
or light cruiser. His line and mine combined to form something like:
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
In a flurry of shells and torpedoes, half my light forces went down,
but they sunk or seriously crippled over half the BB's and CA's in the
line. Suddenly, my BB's had both range and speed advantage, and once
again si-move had provided an amusing, but not necessarily realistic
view of simulation.
richard pluzak
>being a hex last digit affected. If you are willing to make a few more rolls,
>you can do better by rolling each unit for panic, with the same kind of
>system,
Exactly what Yaq did.
>suitably reduced in effect or kept apart by reload considerations. We had
>great success with a Richtofen's War variant with quartered movement phases
Appears you are some kind of game designer, ed.
>The ideal for a computerized tactical tank game would probably be something
>with no hexgrid, with free movement instead and actual target angle/armor
>penetration calulations built in, a simple orders interface, hidden movement,
>and either unit by unit sequential, simove, or maybe even continuous action
Agreed. In the meantime, when SHM (Simultaneous Hidden Movement) is applied
across e-mail, another fabulous aspect which is missing any any board game
encounter, surfaces. Believe it or not, emotional bonding with a unit can
occur. what a howl. Hows that for enhancing the enjoyment.
You immediately say What?? Here's how the scenario works.
Lets say an Email SHM is started, with 10 players per side. This could be
20, 30 even 100, and this is where the YAQ system excels. Instead of each
gamer handling a pile of units, each side is broken into standard formations
of the game era. Thus, a single player could end up controlling ONE counter.
If a commander is selected, then all the Command Control rules apply
superbly.
Lets say you ed, in a 50 player game choose to be a Tank Commander or maybe
a Squad Leader of a German Assault Squad Plus with attached Panzerfaust.
You thus have one lousy little counter for the the pending battle.
Already, you are becoming emotionally attached to the idea of surviving with
this unit. Next, let's say you are organized with 4 other guys, of which
one is elected commander, and this company is transported into a wooded area
overlooking a town. you unload, move your squad into position in the woods
and look over the town. so far so good. you can't see anything, but you know
there has to be a bloody 88 in that house by the road.
you patiently wait for orders, and finally your commanding officer sends you
orders to walk down the road and enter the town. He also adds that
intelligence from an armoured car that was sent through earlier indicates
the town is empty. you smell a rat!
what are you going to do? in a normal board game you could care less and send
up a pile of units aginst a defensive position because you see everything.
NO big deal.
In emailSHM, you immediately radio your commander and tell him intelligence
is full of shit, and no fucking way are you going to walk into town. He
comes back and says get your butt moving or you'll screw up the game.
Your reply will probably be something to the effect of "bullshit. i have one
counter and if it gets blown away, i'm out of the game, so screw you and
have artillery drop smoke into hex 4354 to cover the approach. the CO agrees
and away you go, only to get strafed by an ME262 and die anyway.
so tell me that emotional bonding did not occur in this scenario. even
better, lets say your assault squad lived through the game. Next game where
you have infantry, this counts towards your morale. as this unit survives
(how about a Tiger II commander on the eastern front with 3 confirmed
kills), you become an ACE and turn crack status.
As your reputation spreads as being a mean deadly son of a bitch, and you
end up with that unit again on another game, like hell you'll do things that
you would on a normal board game. You now are personifying yourself as a
Tiger II elite commander and even begin to gain the respect of other tank
commanders in your company. At this point it's not just another counter.
Thus, counter unit 618 becomes yours, like a famous hockey player and when
you finally meet your blazing end, the number is retired and you go down in
history a hero!
In other words, you don't need a cattle prod to simulate realism. Adrenaline
is adrenaline, and once flowing the realism is there. Imagine you are lead
tank of six in a spearhead and all of a sudden see four JS-lll's moving away
from your direction of travel at a range of 500 meters (10 hexes). You'll
be issuing orders quickly.
This is the level of gaming that EmailSHM (EMSHM) and Yaquinto can produce
today.
>hidden movement games when the opportunity arises. I've played in some great
>refereed hidden movement Squad Leader games with two sets of the game. The
>trick is getting a referee. I've refereed a lot of hidden movement games,
>more
>than I've played in, more with miniatures than boardgames, because it's
So how about it? I'll even ref so you can get into it.
Only one small detail. Seems like it's just you and me on the mapboard. One
Yank and one Canuck. All we need now is a Brit, a German and maybe an
Italian, and have ourselves a regular flying circus.
I'd hazard a guess and say there might be a third Yaq player on usenet in
the world, maybe. If so grab a dozen pieces and lets hit it. Otherwise,
something to think about next time you're sitting at a board game and just
lost an armoured brigade for the cost of one beer.
-rp-
Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025
Well, as a couple of people have pointed out, I misremembered CA as being
SiMove. Oh well, haven't played it in about fifteen years. As for strategic
SiMove games, besides Dippy, already mentioned, there are the various offspring
of Dippy, like Machiavelli from AH and Middle Sea by FGU which covers the
Crusades era with units that act roughly like Dippy for movement but are
leaders with troop strengths attached, kind of like Kingmaker. Several
miniatures campaign systems I've come across have strategic SiMove, and various
strategic postal games. Reach for the Stars is a computer game very similar to
Stellar Conquest, that works a lot like a SiMove double blind version of
the boardgame, with a toroidal wrap around map. It's major limitation is that
the players have to take turns at the computer, no network or modem version
yet, at least for the Mac. Then contacts and battles are resolved in a
computer referee determined order after all orders are in if I remember right.
The army tank simulator net sounds neat but doesn't count as a game until it's
commercial and you can buy or rent access to the game. Actually, a lot of
networked computer games are getting pretty close, from Genie's Air Warriors to
the Battletech game centers that I've read about here. Plato had some good
network simultanous movement wargames ten years ago, don't know how far they've
evolved since. I have high hopes for the virtual reality goggle systems to
obviate the problem of surrounding you with monitors to get realistic
multidirectional view within a few years. A few years for affordable,
commercial implementations with the game software that is.
Ed Allen (al...@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025
I played a couple of games of Kevin Zucker's 1809 game with semi hidden
movement using the Nebelwerfer screens that Orisek Industries put out years
ago. It worked pretty well for operational level limited intelligence. The
screens are little black plastic stands with clear bases that hold counters up
on end, making them work like Stratego pieces, you see the face, the enemy sees
a blank, until he's adjacent in combat. It's essentially like playing with
face down counters except you can keep track of where your own stuff is better.
1809 is a good candidate for this kind of treatment because of the scale and
low counter density on the map, you move leader counters on the map and keep
strength tracks on offmap charts. If you want to try this kind of thing,
another way to do it is to cover your map with a clear plastic sheet or
plexiglass and use plastic adhesive for posters like Holdit in little wads to
hold the counters up on edge.
The game was pretty neat because you had natural dummies in the ability to
detach infantry and cavalry major generals from large formations to lead
individual divisions which go on alternate routes and confuse the opponent
about who is who and at what strength. We had events like me holding back from
attacking a fort across a river at a critical bridge because I couldn't tell
that it was only guarded by a token force under a major general that could have
been easily swept aside. Good cavalry screening and reconaissance tactics
start to really take on their historical importance when you play this way.
Lots of fun if you are into Napoleonic campaign histories and the strategic
problems of the campaigns of the era. Ed-Bob says check it out.
Ed Allen (al...@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
David H. Thornley
>In article <1990Mar31....@athena.mit.edu> d...@athena.mit.edu
>
>>None of these three are really historical simulations, however: can anyone
>>think of any strategic-level historical wargames which use SiMove?
>
>_StarSolider_ and _OutReach_), isn't historical. GDW's SSN is tactical.
I haven't seen strategic SiMove games in general. Outreach, if I remember
correctly, was sequential. The highest-level one I remember is GDW's
Operation Crusader, featuring battalion and company-sized units. I don't
think simultaneous movement is really suited for strategic games, although
I could see simultaneous allocation of forces, which has some elements of
simultaneous movement. (Example: in SPI's Dreadnought - the campaign game -
in each round each player would allocate available forces to each of the four
scenarios. This would represent some form of abstract SiMove.)
>
> A quasi SiMove game and a concept I always admired was the Untried
>units out of _Invasion America_. I can't recall another game ever using
>untried units, it was a good concept.
I don't remember SiMove in Invasion America, but that was a long time ago and
I didn't really like the game anyway. SPI made fairly heavy use of untried
units thereafter, including Panzergruppe Guderian (later picked up by AH) and
that series of East Front games. One thing they did near the end was just put
the size and quality of the unit on the counter, then draw a strength counter
from a cup to see how strong the unit really is. Worked fairly well for
games without too many units. In most games you picked once for the game, in
their Sicily game they asked you to pick again for each combat.
>
> I'll root around in the closet and see what I can find.
>
>Best,
>
>Glenn
David Thornley
richard pluzak
yes, SiMove is slow but for "fog of war" stands on a pinnacle by itself.
nothing can simulate this chaos and confusion of real combat as well as
SiMove-so far as I know.
eventually, dial up bbs'ing as remote terminals will die the death it
deserves. The future lies in dial-up networking. i.e. you dial up a server
and run x-windows at home, preferably over ISDN. Real time (no backbones)
will intro a new era to simulation, but probably too costly. It'll be more
like some type of graphics script that is actually executed on your home x-
terminal.
SiMove approaches Real Time as Increments approaches zero. Yaq has about 15
phases that somehow needs to be preserved yet compressed in order to execute
turns quickly.
This is why naval SiMove needs a different time base when units are engaged,
since turning a battleship takes much longer than turning a tank turret.
The untouched realism of S&M (pun intended) desperately needs computer
assistance, although emailed phases are workable now, just time consuming.
instant gratification is the goal.
that existing "tank simulator" sounds addictive. still, the best 3D is
paintball. sure, become a mercenary you say. i prefer graphics blood, and
therein lies the answer=>stick around until technology wires us together.
In summary, one cannot have a board outing with friends and play SiMove
Hidden. Maybe a Compuserve type "live" game conference would do the trick.
Actually, a live tournament is feasible if all teams met in a hall with the
main board and refs hidden from the isolated teams. There could be one
member per board games for the ultimate in realism, but more fun would be
the team events. Of course the team games would have all members know
exactly where their own units were, but that would make playing especially
enjoyable, with hidden actually happening.
it's like searching for the 'holy grail'.
richard pluzak
bloody akcs. can't even respond to a message in a thread.
anyway, for David Kohr:
What is double-blind as in "GDW double-blind _descent into hell_"
A spin off of SiMove? A less exasperating derivative of SiMove?? realism
without the pain?
Glenn Thain
>None of these three are really historical simulations, however: can anyone
>think of any strategic-level historical wargames which use SiMove?
None come to mind. SPI's _OUTREACH_ (Part of the big 3, _StarForce_,
_StarSolider_ and _OutReach_), isn't historical. GDW's SSN is tactical.
A quasi SiMove game and a concept I always admired was the Untried
units out of _Invasion America_. I can't recall another game ever using
untried units, it was a good concept.
I'll root around in the closet and see what I can find.
Best,
Glenn
NETO...@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu
Where US Force of Destroyers and Light Cruisers (lead by the CA San
Francisco) Ran into a larger force of Japanese Light and Heavy Crrusers,
lead by the Battleship Hiei.
The US Squadron sailed right between the Japanese squadron at ranges
of under 100 Yards!! The San Francisco was sunk, along with about 1/2
the US Force, but the Hiei was mortally wounded (Sank the next day), and
half of the Japanese ships were wiped out.
#
richard pluzak
>I played a couple of games of Kevin Zucker's 1809 game with semi hidden
>movement using the Nebelwerfer screens that Orisek Industries put out years
Sounds like a stratego player put 2+2 together and made it work.
Certainly creative but not practical for WW2 tactical.
Another workable way to have dispersed players enjoy the fruits of the holy
grail, is X.25 dialup to a remote timeshared host. e.g. the 88/Panzer/Armour
rules would be programmed under Unix (computerized referee) and players
would dial their local X.25 phone number.
Everyone logged in would thus be able to play in real time with timed
phases. This is not a costly setup and quite feasible. Only problem is time
zone differences. However, if regional playoffs were held, the country could
be blanketed with problems occurring only during the finals.
Using this method, it might cost around 10cents/min or 6 bucks/hr. With
timed phases, an entire Hidden SiMove game might only run 1-2 hrs. For the
once in a lifetime opportunity to play a true full blown HSM game, that's
within the pain threshold.
This setup could accomodate 20 players real time quite easily without
resorting to an overly large communications front end. The next evolutionary
step would be X-windows or some other common graphics interface. Or even
less complicated, a Graphics program running on your PC which would work
with primitives. Thus, the host would merely send these primitive graphics
codes controlling the smart remote pc graphics program.
Sounds like NAPLPS or Prestel, or once upon a time Telidon. Maybe we could
truck on over to France and program the CRT based French telephone system to
display a Yaquinto mapboard. How's 10 million people playing Hidden SiMove
in real time sound like? Not too shabby at all. Only one small glitch - my
french is so bad, i'd probably end up fighting on the wrong side, and
knowing French justice would probably be shot for desertion.
Maybe the answer to these perplexing desires lies at the bottom of a Molson
Special Brew bottle. Better check it out.
William B. Thacker
>>suitably reduced in effect or kept apart by reload considerations. We had
>>great success with a Richtofen's War variant with quartered movement phases
>
>Appears you are some kind of game designer, ed.
Everyone who's ever thought of a rules change is a game designer.
>Agreed. In the meantime, when SHM (Simultaneous Hidden Movement) is applied
>across e-mail, another fabulous aspect which is missing any any board game
>encounter, surfaces. Believe it or not, emotional bonding with a unit can
>occur. what a howl. Hows that for enhancing the enjoyment.
Emotional bonding (which is really just a facet of role-playing) has
nothing to do with simultaneous movement, hidden units, or email play.
It derives simply from the player being adequately motivated to preserve
his units. Typically, this means the player has too few units to afford
losing one; doing so would diminish the enjoyment of the game for him.
You can do this in any game. Give a player 3 squads in Squad Leader,
and watch how cautious she becomes. Or for that matter, let them play
Italy in a strategic-level WWII game 8-)
>Lets say you ed, in a 50 player game choose to be a Tank Commander or maybe
>a Squad Leader of a German Assault Squad Plus with attached Panzerfaust.
>You thus have one lousy little counter for the the pending battle.
>the CO agrees and away you go, only to get strafed by an ME262 and die anyway.
At which point the jet commander is court-martialled for attacking his
own troops 8-)
>In other words, you don't need a cattle prod to simulate realism. Adrenaline
>is adrenaline, and once flowing the realism is there. Imagine you are lead
>tank of six in a spearhead and all of a sudden see four JS-lll's moving away
>from your direction of travel at a range of 500 meters (10 hexes). You'll
>be issuing orders quickly.
While I agree that adrenaline cane get flowing in an exciting situation,
I have to wonder how much email play detracts from that. It's kind of hard
to maintain any excitement in the situation you cite when you have
several hours to ponder your options, and must wait a day or more to find
the outcome of your decision.
Si-move and hidden units are two separate factors. I employ hidden units
in my microarmor game, and agree that it's a critical addition to a good
game. The most exciting and brilliant games I've seen and run have all
involved skillful use of hidden units. And as Richard says, people
play differently when all the cards aren't on the table.
I've even gone so far as to run double-blind microarmor, with two
identical tables in separate rooms. While it's demanding on the game-
master (I toyed with the idea of marketing it as "The Kriegspiel Diet"
8-) it's unparalleled, in my experience, at reproducing the fog of war
and its resultant cautiousness.
Si-move is more difficult to handle. It involves more book-keeping,
which is especially difficult in miniatures (as compared to boardgames).
I currently settle for a semi-sequential system, in which each side moves
one unit (typically, a company) as I flip cards from a deck. Side one
moves on a black card, side two on a red card. When the Joker comes up,
both sides cease movement (often leaving some units unmoved). The
number of cards allocated for each side depends on the number of units
they have and on their relative command control abilities. 1941 Soviets,
for example, might only have 2 cards for every three units, while
Germans of the same era would have 1.5 cards per unit.
I'd be interested in other methods of introducing si-move into miniatures.
- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus w...@cbnews.att.com
Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
Greg Lindahl
>While I agree that adrenaline cane get flowing in an exciting situation,
>I have to wonder how much email play detracts from that. It's kind of hard
>to maintain any excitement in the situation you cite when you have
>several hours to ponder your options, and must wait a day or more to find
>the outcome of your decision.
Don't kock it until you try it. At the moment I'm waiting for turn 7
of Tony Lovell's Battleships game to arrive in my mailbox. Dum de dum
dum.
A game designed specifically for email (or mail) might involve a
thousand or more players and last years. I find such games much more
interesting and exciting than traditional face-to-face play.
Greg Lindahl
gl...@virginia.edu I gave my lunch for space-sickness research.
David R Kohr
>anyway, for David Kohr:
>
>What is double-blind as in "GDW double-blind _descent into hell_"
"Double-blind" is an implementation of hidden movement in which each
player has a separate, identical map displaying only that player's
units. Each player knows which hexes "belong to" the other player,
so each time a player moves a unit into an enemy-controlled hex,
he reports this to the other player. Control of the hex passes to
whoever last had units in the hex, after resolving possible combat
due to units entering enemy hexes.
I think it's a great way to implement hidden movement cheaply and
easily (the only components required are an extra copy of the map
and some counters for indicating possession of hexes). Only a
few games use it, unfortunately. It also is only realistic
for operational and strategic games, since knowledge of enemy
unit positions in tactical games typically depends upon
line-of-sight calculations.
These are the only double-blind games which I have heard of:
GDW's _Operation_Market-Garden:_Descent_Into_Hell_,
GDW's _Crusader_,
and some WWI game from GDW;
some Eastern Front game by 3W, published in an early issue of
_The_Wargamer_.
Charles Martin
>I haven't seen strategic SiMove games in general. Outreach, if I remember
>correctly, was sequential. The highest-level one I remember is GDW's
>Operation Crusader, featuring battalion and company-sized units.
And what a monster that is! Five maps and every unit in Crusader at
company level. A perfect game for blind email. How many copies are
out there? (Note that this is not SPI's unplayable Campaign for North
Africa; Operation Crusader actually works as a game!)
Charles Martin // mar...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Jeff W. Cohen
>These are the only double-blind games which I have heard of:
>
>GDW's _Operation_Market-Garden:_Descent_Into_Hell_,
>GDW's _Crusader_,
>and some WWI game from GDW;
>some Eastern Front game by 3W, published in an early issue of
>_The_Wargamer_.
GDW also put out a double blind game about the Normandy Campaign,
though its name escapes me for the moment.
>David R. Kohr M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory Group 45 ("Radars 'R' Us")
> email: D...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (preferred) or KO...@LL.LL.MIT.EDU
> phone: (617)981-0775 (work) or (617)527-3908 (home)
-The Raven
dmon...@oak.circa.ufl.edu
>And what a monster that is! Five maps and every unit in Crusader at
>company level. A perfect game for blind email. How many copies are
>out there? (Note that this is not SPI's unplayable Campaign for North
>Africa; Operation Crusader actually works as a game!)
>
>Charles Martin // mar...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
I have a copy. I'd love to someday actually play the thing but it is big and
has loads of stuff to take care of (many counters)
I can't see doing it blind email just do to space (how many people could ever
keep it set up for long). Still, the idea is good.
I have to agree though. While it is physically pretty big it is a good playable
system and looks like a great game.
Dave Bonar
bo...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Greg Givler - Product Assurance
>>anyway, for David Kohr:
>>
>>What is double-blind as in "GDW double-blind _descent into hell_"
>
>GDW's _Operation_Market-Garden:_Descent_Into_Hell_,
>GDW's _Crusader_,
>and some WWI game from GDW;
>some Eastern Front game by 3W, published in an early issue of
>_The_Wargamer_.
Add Midway by Avalon Hill to the list.
The search phase was a double blind setup.
Each person would announce his search hexes and the opposing player
would have to tell if he had any ships in the hex. In the advanced game
I think all you had to say was "I have 7 ships there" in the basic game
you would tell what types of ships. The former was probably more
realistic in that it can be hard to figure out what ships are down there
when you are scudding clouds and avoiding enemy fighters.
Yngve Larsson
> GDW also put out a double blind game about the Normandy Campaign,
>though its name escapes me for the moment.
The name is _The Normandy Campaign_ :-)
Sort of a strange game, since at 3-day turns and regimental-division
level units, you probably would have some idea of the opposition strength
from recon/intelligence. Can be great fun though, even if the German side
is essentially doomed - in one game I almost accidentally moved a SS panzer
division to a certain spot in front of St Lo. The next turn the allied
player launched a major assault on this hex, expecting to crush the normal
(weak) german screening infantry. The assault failed, though at a great cost
to my panzer division. In another game I found a gap in the British front
and managed to raid their beaches with a bicycle infantry regiment. Stalled
the allied advance for a long time.
I eventually lost both games, nevertheless..
--
Yngve Larsson UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla
Dept of CIS Internet: y...@ida.liu.se
Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949
Dwane Aldrich
CityFight by SPI
This was a Squad-Leader level (?) tactical game of modern infantry combat
in a built-up area. Very tactical (lines-of-sight, etc.).
Charles Martin
love to get a copy of the article. (Just a smelly old xerox or FAX
would be fine).
In article <22...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, dmonster@oak writes:
>I can't see doing it blind email just do to space (how many people
>could ever keep it set up for long). Still, the idea is good.
I think the Battleaxe scenario would be perfect---not too big and only
one and a half maps.
Charles Martin // mar...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
thomas.m.harris
playtested it. Well...until we figured out that with 22 players at two weeks
a turn it would take about 11 years (remember each turn is an hour).
Never-the-less either Brevity or Battle-axe are much more managable or if
you really want trouble there is a Sidi-Regazi(sp?) scenario that was done
later and added as errata. Even though I am prejudiced (as a playtester) I
think the movement system in the game is the best simulation of desert
movement I have seen. Frank really put the work into this one (even the
divisional MP companies are numbered). FYI: Another game with the same combat
system (not movement) is White Death (the battle of Velaluki-luki(sp?).
Tom H.
Charles Martin
>I think the movement system in the game is the best simulation of desert
>movement I have seen. Frank really put the work into this one (even the
>divisional MP companies are numbered). FYI: Another game with the same
The same combat system shows up in Suez '73 as well, a terrific game---it's
also only one map, so you can actually set it up! For movement I put
Avalanche! beyond anything else I've ever seen. What a unique solution for
the rugged terrain around the Salerno area! I rate Operation Crusader,
Avalanche!, Suez '73, and Citadel (Dien Bien Phu---nothing quite like being
the French and seeing hordes of Vietminh rushing the strongpoint held by a
single company) as the Games I'm Most Glad I Got. (Haven't seen White Death.)
I think it's incredible that GDW has let all these great, great simulations go
out of print while pumping money into that Space: 1889 business.
>playtested it. Well...until we figured out that with 22 players at two weeks
>a turn it would take about 11 years (remember each turn is an hour).
Ah, but because it is simultaneous movement, you could have everyone write
conditional orders for their columns so that only ONE mailing would be
necessary per turn. And with the wonders of modern E-mail... at three turns a
week, it would only take 20 weeks to do Battleaxe (still two and a half years
for Crusader, though).
Charles
C. Michel Boucher
>anyway, for David Kohr:
>
>What is double-blind as in "GDW double-blind _descent into hell_"
>
I can't resist the opportunity to butt in here :-).
What David was referring to, although I missed the original stuff, is,
if I'm not mistook, OPERATION MARKET-GARDEN, by GDW. The game has been
subtitled _Descent into Hell_. The game was designed by Frank Chadwick
and is copyrighted 1985. The specific design "innovation" was to provide
two maps, each side using only position counters to mark the opponent's
location, but with no specific military information. As units enter into
conflict, various aspects are revealed, or some such thing. Each side's
OOB is kept secret by having two copies of everything. Definitely not a
game that rates high on my favourite solitaire list.
By the way, Yes, I'm A Rabid Metagaming Collector (YIARMC) and if anyone
has copies of either of the following they're willing to part with, please
contact me in direct mail:
THE YTHRI
LORDS OF THE UNDEREARTH
GODSFIRE
STELLAR CONQUEST
I'd also be interested in the *rules* to TARTARS AND MARTYRS in SPACEGAMER 20.
I have the counters and game map, but the rules were taken out of the copy
I bought used. Anyone helping me out would receive my undying gratitude :-).
Michel
Bob Stettler
> One further double-blind game no one has mentioned:
>
> CityFight by SPI
>
> This was a Squad-Leader level (?) tactical game of modern infantry combat
> in a built-up area. Very tactical (lines-of-sight, etc.).
This game provided a perfect example of anomalous behavior in
double-blind movement/combat systems. I remember a case where two
opposing tanks passed each other on the same street going opposite
directions and never fired a shot (in broad daylight). In fact, given
the double blind system and the large movement allowances of vehicles,
I'm not sure if either tank 'knew' the other even existed.
Despite the problems, this was an interesting game. Lots of rules and
play variations. If I remember right, the double blind movement system
used here were used later (and more successfully IMHO) in SPI's Task
Force (modern naval combat). The graphics and terrain types were also
kind of nifty. In particular I remember the autobahn offramps on one
side of the town most of the senarios were set in. However, after
running into the above strange situation I could never quite get
myself back into this game again... (too many games, too little time).
--
+-+
+-+
+-+ Bob Stettler, bo...@omews6.intel.com
| | Intel Corporation, 2111 N.E. 25th
| | Hillsboro, OR 97124
+-+
cole...@gmail.com
> Who out there is, was or wasn't a yaquinto fan?
>
> Primarily regarding the 88, Panzer and Armour theatres. I was introduced to
> this system some 10 years ago, and have not been able to find a more
> realistic simulation since. Simultaneous movement was the realism
> breakthrough i didn't know was possible. After playing Yaq for several
> years, some comparison playing was done with Squad Leader. One game was
> enough to junk Avalon Hill, although the documentation was excellent.
>
> In fact, the system lends itself beautifully to computerization, and the
> ultimate pinnacle of gaming, "hidden movement" was realized. Once you've
> played " simultaneous hidden movement", nothing touches the challenge except
> for live paintball. Being new to usenet and just into this .board group and
> email, introduces the concept of multi-player gaming unbelievably well over
> this medium.
>
> In fact, with just one "referee", and not even invoking 'computerized
> sighting' it would be possible to stage an international event "live". The
> possibilities are staggering.
>
> The participants would all have the same map board layout, either from the
> actual game, or one that was created. (possibly from actual photos of the
> terrain). The moves would be emailed to the ref, who would actually be
> neutral, and in turn would return actual sighting/hearing data to the
> individual player or teams.
>
> It would thus be possible for the first time to actually examine "what might
> have been, if Patton had been allowed to continue after "the real enemy -
> the communists". The Americans against the Soviets using 1945 weapons in
> Russian terrain. The individual units are so detailed in all respects e.g.
> thickness of armour, angle of incidence, velocity at point of impact,
> caliber, accuracy etc, that some long unanswered questions might be resolved.
>
> To really top it off, teams actually from the USA, Germany, Britain, USSR
> and even Italy, using their own countries period AFV's and Infantry, could
> actually face off on the battlefield. Even the French and Polish hatred of
> the Nazis is represented, besides including crack SS troops.
>
> I've never seen another gaming system so historically accurate as what the
> Yaq guys created. And one that lends itself so gorgeously to email.
>
> Naturally, with the Chinese being the only communists left in the world,
> some of the emotional incentive may not be there, but the possibility of
> playing full 'hidden movement' with ALL options can be a reality.
>
> In fact, maybe in jest, there are 8 Canadian "Yaq" players who say they
> could beat any American, Soviet, German or British Team in any theatre
> using whatever mixed bag of Allied, German or Soviet equipment is available.
>
> If anyone knows of the wherabouts of a more historically accurate,
> realistically simulated, tactical gaming system let me know. see you on the
> field.
>
> -rp-
Hello everyone, my father, Richard Pluzak, passed away in '92, and all these years later after dicking around on google I find his old message board postings, i assume google has been indexing old bbs or usenet posts from the look of things, and I was wondering if A: anyone will ever see this message, and B if anyone knew my father or perhaps had anecdotes to tell me about him. I knew he played table top world war 2 games quite a bit, and it would mean alot to me to hear a word or two about him. So here goes, rolling the dice out into the ether. Sincerely
-Coleston Pluzak
David Damerell
> look of things, and I was wondering if A: anyone will ever see this messag=
>e, and B if anyone knew my father or perhaps had anecdotes to tell me about=
> him.
A) yes, people still read this group but B) no, afraid not. 1990 is 3
years before my time here.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Mania, November.
Tomorrow will be Aponoia, November.