Computer-assisted wargaming
JERRY NORDBYE
how about a quick overview of the rules and let us know how they play
and what you think of them.
John Bicknell
I don't play them...but the most popular set I have heard of is
called 'Eaglebearer'. Hope that helps.
John Bicknell
Tankumuch
writes:
> Is anyone using computer-assisted rules for wargaming? If so
>how about a quick overview of the rules and let us know how they play
>and what you think of them.
I use three sets of computer assisted rules. I use Shipbase 3 for naval
warfare 1890-1945, Rally Once More for American Civil War and To Me! for
Medieval Warfare.
Shipbase 3 from Armoursoft (Box 323, Bloomsburg PA 17815) has it all. You
can play in any scale, it has a strategic mode and of course it covers all
the ships and aircraft afloat (almost) from 1890-1945. It is very easy to
learn and easy to play. The computer handles all the computations and can
print results. The ship data book alone is worth the cost ($39.95) as it
lists all the ships and plane/data (5500 ships!!)
The software itself will run on any PC. No graphics but it does have a
mouse option. The only drawback is that if you don't have a laptop you
need to have your computer close by. Mine is in the next room so I write
down who is shooting at who, the range and angles then enter the info and
the computer figures the results of the fire/bombs/torps etc.
Rally Once More! and To Me! come from Computer Strategies (32 Brown St.,
Bronte NSW 2024 Australia) phone (it's faster) 011-612-389-8943
These rules have all the qualities of Shipbase 3 above except that the
rules are a bit more difficult to understand (the English vs. American
language thing) and the scale covers 5mm to 25mm. The software is in its
third version now and contains Campaign, Tactical and Naval and Solo
modules so you can game in these areas. You can play down to regimental
level. (I play down to Brigade level and use Fire and Fury to get my
forces and Battlefield set up) The games play OK but I've had to make
small modifications and additions to cover some small tactical items.
These rules go for $51.95 each (It sounds like alot, but it's really worth
it considering all the chores that the software takes care of).
All I can say is that they are worth the money and they sure do make
miniatures a joy to play because they speed things up combat wise and
handle the paperwork too.
If you have specific questions feel free to email me and I'll do my best
to answer.
Computer Strategies makes other rules sets for 19th Century colonial, 19th
Century Europe, Napoleonics,18th Century,Renaissance, 650BC to 600AD, and
Fantasy.
NavalWarR
Sail), and Battlefleet: The Dreadnoughts (1890 to 1922).
All three are excellent products, so much so that I've ceased using any of
the manual naval rules sets I have, although several of them, primarily
Command at Sea, are clearly excellent simulations as well. The previous
post by Tankumuch had the Shipbase address, the other two games are as
follows (both are published in England).
Clear for Action
Langton Miniatures
North Trendeal
Landock, Truro
Cornwall, TR2 4QQ
United Kingdom
phone 01726 882805
Battlefleet: The Dreadnoughts
Alan Durrant
392 Long Lane
Finchley, London N2 8JX
United Kingdom
phone 0181 444 0856
You're welcome to drop me a note for more info.
Nathan Forney
Naval Wargaming Review
Yale F. Edeiken
> Is anyone using computer-assisted rules for wargaming? If so
> how about a quick overview of the rules and let us know how they play
> and what you think of them.
>
>
>>>>
Bearer and good set for the American Revolution). They seemed to play well but
I thought the mechanics were slow; although that might have been the result of
the mise en scene. We will *not* play them with our local group as there is a
faction -- frustrated crap shooters? -- that just *loves* to roll dem bones.
--YFE
kwenker
it out with my gaming group - these are/were die-hard Fletcher
Pratt players (computerized tables so it was easier to use) -
but now they don't want to use anything except SB III. Naval
Wargaming Review has some good articles for modifying variuos
features in SB III to account for national differences (such as
poor Japanese damage control in WWII). And, there is a good
section on AOL with lots of tips and some scenarios. I highly
recommend this for naval wargamers.
As to Rally Once More - I tried it, but now use Carnage &
Glory. I find the flow better and the results a lot closer to
what I've read in the histories. Dave Bonk, the US stockist is
constantly offereing upgrades and sending ideas back to the
author. The campaign feature in C&G is a lot better, IMHO.
Actually, either set works, it is just what one gets used to
and the feel one has with it. I will say this, no matter which
set you try, it is hard to go back to the charts and pages of
rules. Once people get off the DIE ROLLING need, they find
they actually can concentrate on tactics and let the results
take care of themselves.
Tim Marshall
> the mise en scene. We will *not* play them with our local group as there is a
> faction -- frustrated crap shooters? -- that just *loves* to roll dem bones.
I have written routines using dBase to handle our homegrown armour rules,
but I have to say that something is missing when you can't role a die or
dice.
For example...
Your Firefly has caught a Tiger with its turret slewed off to the side
engaging another Sherman. With shaking hands, you check the probability
to hit, knowing that any hit beside a track hit is going to put paid to
the monster who even now is traversing desperately to lay his sights on
you. Knowing what is required you shake the dice, afraid to let them
loose because failure will mean an 88 round down your throat. The German
players, tense and nervous urge you, "roll, roll, roll!" Finally, you
let the dice fly. Every eye in the room follows the rolling, wobbly
path, all breathing stopped... Once the die is cast, the loud cheers and
gnashing of teeth which release all that pent up tension threaten to
shake the house down...
Sorry, the click of an enter key just doesn't compare! :)
Tim
(
Memorial University _________%^\
of Newfoundland /| *_\ "Ignorance is wilful"
St. John's, NF / |\_______/ - Bill Watterson
Canada || ||
John Bicknell
>For example...
>
<snipped a well-written, colorful description of a desperate must make
die-roll in a WWII gaming situation>
You hit on a very good point -- ambiance. For me, a computer next to
my Napoleonics game would hurt the ambiance of the game. I have some
strong preferences for gaming media for different periods.
For Napoleonics and earlier...I really want to play miniatures. Unless
doing a campaign, I wouldn't want to play a board game for these periods.
And a computer game would leave me cold. Miniatures give me the right
aesthetic sense and ambiance.
For WWII, I actually prefer board games. Although I don't play them
much...I really like the ambiance a 'map' gives me for the period. I
relate the games to the maps I have of WWII battles and campaigns. Also,
I really like operational level simulations for that period.
On the other hand, if I gamed modern naval combat, such as Harpoon, I
would do it on a computer. For that type of combat, a computer just
seems right.
John Bicknell
David G. Bell
> Is anyone using computer-assisted rules for wargaming? If so
> how about a quick overview of the rules and let us know how they play
> and what you think of them.
One practical problem -- finding space for a computer. But at least
most of the rules I have seen would run on older, and hence cheaper,
portables.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
PONATOWSKI
set of flexible computer assisted rules. He hopes to have an updated PC
version available soon. His internet access is spotty, so if you would
like more info feel free to contact me.
I do agree that not having to worry about computing odds and probabilities
leaves much more time to concentrate on tactics. Rich's system uses
simple toggles for everything from the formation of the units, to whether
their Commander is attached. The only table you need to consult for
combat is for range modification.
Once you've played it a few times, having someone peer over your shoulder
at the screen in anticipation is just as exciting as watching the dice
roll across the table.
Tom
Jay Martino
I could afford a laptop, I'd probably run out and start buying them.
Unfortunately, my gaming is done at a club, and I don't want to be
lugging my desktop back and forth every two weeks.
On the plus side, I think it could speed up play of a moderated game
greatly (since the ref would easily be able to do the calculations).
One of our biggest problems in our games is doing the calculations,
and waiting for someone to roll. Granted, the tension in a die-roll
that someone else mentioned here adds some ambiance, but with computer
moderation I think there would still be tension (waiting to find out
what the damage is to your beautifully painted model of HMS HOOD).
Some players have an almost mystical affinity with dice, but I just
regard them as a tool to achieve an end. If I can use a more efficient
tool, the computer, to achieve that end, I'm much happier.
The possibilities for Naval wargaming are staggering. Efficient hidden
plotting (I'm currently using duplicate maps and a light table or
overlays). Hidden damage: the enemy continues to pound poor HMS LION
because she hasn't blown up, even though she was effectively out of
action three turns ago (he may catch on when he realizes that she
hasn't fired for three turns, and her moves co-incide with coasting to
a stop). I think the achievement of good "fog of war" alone would
increse the tension to levels unheard of in dice games.
In short, I really like the idea, and as soon as I can afford a cheap
laptop I'll probably give it a try.
Jay
Ferns1
>The one problem I have with computer-assisted rules is portability. If
>I could afford a laptop, I'd probably run out and start buying them.
I've picked up a number of cheap (and even free) laptops over the years,
but then again I've been in the computer biz for a long time. If there are
any computer shows near you, you can pick up used laptops that are
perfectly capable of running any of the computer-assist rules out there
(although they probably won't be able to run Windows or the latest video
games) for under $100.
Larry Irons
>
> The one problem I have with computer-assisted rules is portability. If
> I could afford a laptop, I'd probably run out and start buying them.
> lugging my desktop back and forth every two weeks.
>
> laptop I'll probably give it a try.
>
> Jay
Most computer assisted wargame packages use plain old DOS (POD). Old 286
and 386 laptops with small hard drives are available for a few hundred
dollars in the classified advertisments. They will work fine for the
current state of technology for wargaming assist software.
--
======================================================
Larry Irons
ir...@qadas.com
from Lakewood, Colorado
Steve Miller
completely work it out. Has anyone out there bought into this system?
Our Thrusday Night Irregular Palace of Passion has a 486SX running
Windows95 (Mac 87?) and has no problems to date. We play SB3 as our
naval game of choice because you can't whine to the computer...Iron Duck
was bought for the same reason. I am tinkering with purchasing another
copy of SB3 and Iron Duck (Duke) for my Historical Gaming Group at my
High School. We'll place it on a server and students will be able to
use the dial in features and play either at home or at school through
the network. (Distance Learning???Nah...the teacher just wanted to get
the game on the Network...run it at conventions through the Internet
with his laptop...yeah...you're probably right! :) ) Just gives some
possibilities to using computer moderated games in education and just to
have some fun.
Later..
Steve Miller
(your mother was HAMSTER and your father smelled of ELDERBERREEEES!)
Anton Britten
<JNor...@gnn.com> writes
> Is anyone using computer-assisted rules for wargaming? If so
>how about a quick overview of the rules and let us know how they play
>and what you think of them.
>
I am developing (halfway thru a four year project) campaigning and
tabletop assistance computer systems. These aren't designed for old
(small) laptops, but are Windows (3.1 - 16bit, and 95 - 32bit) sytems,
lots of good graphics etc. and using the latest DataBase technologies.
If anybody can devote some time (for very little reward!) to participate
in a test program, please EMail me. (It won't cost you any money!) I'd
especially like to hear from people running Windows 95. I have a small
group of dedicated testers already - but could always do with more. (A
later phase will need users in remote locations so we can test network
communictions.)
Regards
--
Anton Britten
Anton Britten Computing Ltd You find sympathy in the dictionary -
between sh*t and syphilis !
GREG KELLEHER
>From: Steve Miller <pil...@onramp.net>
>Subject: Re: Computer-assisted wargaming
>Date: 6 Apr 1996 17:43:05 GMT
I have purchased Great Captains for 17th/18th wargamming and I think it is
great. Has anyone else used this set of computer moderated rules? I would be
interested in your comments.
Greg Kelleher
MSiggins
gkel...@metz.une.edu.au (GREG KELLEHER) writes:
>I have purchased Great Captains for 17th/18th wargamming and I think it
is great. Has anyone else used this set of computer moderated rules? I
would be interested in your comments.
This is a good example of a problem I have. I am compiling an overview of
these games for Wargames Illustrated and am having problems finding
publishers. Can anyone let me have details of any they know of? At the
moment I have ECW and Eagle on the list, with a copy of MWAN on the way
for hopefully more.
Any help gratefully accepted, especially on Great Captains.
Thanks
Mike Siggins
Mike Siggins
stdmpm01
(Eaglebearer, Great Captines...) Can these rules run on Macintosh
(which I use)? In particular, I am interested in something that'll
allow double blind movement.
Somebody please post a list of computer moderated Napoleonic miniture
gaming, please... and include where more information can be found.
Thanks,
Mike
stdm...@shsu.edu
Tony Yang
in gaming. Where can I buy them? I play ACW regemantal (like Johnny Reb)
and WW1 skirmish (like squad leader)
--
Tony Yang
aka
tago...@nyc.pipeline.com
----------------------------------------
The real trouble with war is that it gives no one a chance to kill the
right people.
- Ezra Pound
Matt DLM
Is this recent comment of yours an example of what people mean by the term
"passive-aggressive"? You wrote:
"Make no mistake about it; LoG is an *excellent* rules system. But I
think it has *far* more tactical detail than it needs, at the expense of
grand-tactical detail. I believe LoG is historically reasonable, but I
think ATOW-NB does a better job of reflecting what you wrote in your
introduction."
Why would Legacy of Glory be an "excellent rules system" if Napoleon's
Battles "does a better job of reflecting" what I wrote in my
introduction"??? If that were true, I would be the first to admit that LoG
is a total abject failure. Of course, I realize your intent may only have
been to be insulting, but you need to be held accountable here. The first
part of your bad faith stems from the fact that you have already admitted
that you have little interest in representing the details of Napoleonic
warfare. Clearly this view is incompatible with judging a simulation that
places you in the perspective of a corps commander, since, let me assure
you, corps commanders were vitally interested in those things! So, you
have already demonstrated that your opinion is skewed and limited on this
issue, but yet you feel no courtesy or compunction to limit your comments.
But, even worse, you have made yet another outlandish and insulting
statement without backing it up. Pray tell us how Napoleon's Battles does
a better job at meeting LoG's own design objectives (the following
numbered objectives are excerpted from the introduction to LoG). Cris,
please be specific since you felt so qualified to say it in the first
place:
1. "Legacy of Glory began with the desire to create a historical
simulation that would not only place its players in the roles of
Napoleonic Army or Corps commanders, but also foster a sharper
appreciation for the challenges those commanders faced. The conditions of
the Napoleonic battlefield were difficult -the problems of time, distance,
smoke and uncertainty formed its essential characteristics- and command
control was limited at best."
Okay, Cris, explain just how Napoleon's Battles does this better than
Legacy of Glory? Forgive me, but I forgot how it was that NB limited a
player's perspective to a given role, so I'll appreciate your explanation.
Also, I'm very interested in how NB did such a marvelous job of reflecting
"time, distance, and uncertainty" and limiting command control. I was
under the impression that the NB player totally controlled any units that
were within a series of inter-locking command ranges. Also, I'm interested
in how NB succeeds in reflecting command without using any sort of orders
system. Perhaps your historical research suggests that they didn't issue
orders during the Napoleonic period, thus making it an issue subject to
opinion.
2. "That's not to say that player-commanders can't influence tactical
events. On the contrary, it is often necessary to ride down into the thick
of things, into the smoke and confusion to rally broken battalions or to
lead a desperate charge. But, remember, if a commander is engaged in
retrieving a tactical situation, he can't possibly be guiding larger
events, thus players must make the difficult decision of when and where to
intervene."
Cris, how does Napoleon's Battles do a superior job of reflecting this
decision making and command dilemma? Explain how NB reflects a battle
slipping away from the control of its commanders (and players).
3. "The dual problems of time and distance must also be a crucial part of
any Napoleonic simulation....Orders could not instantaneously be
translated into action. In those crucial minutes between the time a
commander sent a courier galloping off with an order until the time it was
read and implemented, events could and did change, sometimes so
dramatically that what once appeared a brilliant move could - just twenty
minutes later - be the very stuff of folly."
Cris, please explain how NB reflects order transmission and delay. It must
do a superb job, since I consider this feature of warfare so critical.
4. "Legacy of Glory re-examines the nature of combined arms in the
Napoleonic Battle....Too many games allow the "radio control" interactions
of cavalry, artillery and infantry, such that tactical combat becomes more
of a game of "paper, rock, scissors" rather than the confused and
virtually uncontrollable maelstrom that it was on the battlefield."
Cris, please explain Napoleon's Battles presentation of grand-tactical and
tactical combined arms. What is the difference? How does NB's do a better
job of reflecting the historical difficulties? Please explain how the
cavalry reaction chit functions as a realistic command mechanic.
Cris, I am looking forward to you actually responding to what I have asked
here. But, frankly, Cris, I don't see how you can defend NB on my very own
terms: that is, LoG's very own design objectives. I guess that's why I
found your comment as absolutely insulting as you no doubt intended it to
be.
Matt DeLaMater
kwenker
issue of MWAN for his address. Rally Once More is from
Australia. MWAN also carries that ad with address and
telephone.
Cris Brown
Cris here. :)
[I wrote:]
>"Make no mistake about it; LoG is an *excellent* rules system. But I
>think it has *far* more tactical detail than it needs, at the expense of
>grand-tactical detail. I believe LoG is historically reasonable, but I
>think ATOW-NB does a better job of reflecting what you wrote in your
>introduction."
[Matt replies:]
>Why would Legacy of Glory be an "excellent rules system" if Napoleon's
>Battles "does a better job of reflecting" what I wrote in my intro-
>duction"???
Read more closely, Matt. I didn't compare LoG to NB; I compared it to
ATOW-NB. A TEST OF WILLS (ATOW) is an event-driven C3I, morale, and
logistics model which can be grafted onto the "fighting rules" from
almost any grand-tactical simulation. I've never defended NB's C3I
model; I've consistently said it sucks. But ATOW is something else
altogether, and when mated with NB's excellent "fighting rules," it
makes for an outstanding system.
[Matt's invective regarding my "bad faith," lack of "courtesy,"
"skewed and limited" opinions, and "insulting" comments elided, as
they were based on Matt's unfamiliarity with ATOW, and his failure to
ask before slinging mud.]
>Pray tell us how Napoleon's Battles does a better job at meeting LoG's
>own design objectives (the following numbered objectives are excerpted
>from the introduction to LoG). Cris, please be specific since you felt
>so qualified to say it in the first place:
I'm not going to defend NB as written, as my statement didn't refer to
NB as written. I will defend ATOW-NB, because that was the system to
which I referred. Since you haven't seen ATOW-NB, and weren't here
for the extensive discussions several months ago, you'll have to take
my word for how it works.
ATOW-NB uses written, persistent orders (i.e.: they remain in effect
until fulfilled, abandoned, or changed). It's also an event-driven
model, which means commanders can only issue new orders in response to
an Event, a "change in the battlefield situation which would attract
the attention of an historical commander." Only the commander(s) who
is(are) *aware* of an Event may respond to that Event; thus, unless
your higher-level commanders are positioned such that they can observe
the activities of their troops, they'll have to wait for messages from
the front to learn about Events. A commander must respond to an Event
when he first learns of it, or not at all; the theory is that once the
commander is aware of the Event, it is no longer a "change in the
battlefield situation" ... it has *become* the situation. Finally,
both messages and orders have delivery delays (based on the quality of
the issuing staff, the distance, and a random function), and orders
must be "activated" (based on the quality of the receiving unit, and a
random function) to take effect. Some of our most frustrating -- and
serendipitous -- tabletop experiences have involved units which failed
to activate orders.
I'll give you an example from an actual tabletop battle. The battle
was a meeting engagement between British and French forces of roughly
equal strength; each of them was trying to cross a meandering river
and move on to join its main force (off the other side of the table).
There were two bridges (call them North Bridge and Center Bridge), and
a single ford (call it South Ford) over the river, and these naturally
became the focal points of the battle.
At about 1000 hrs, our first set of engagements ended, and I was in a
terrible situation. My 1st Division (which had attacked over North
Bridge) had been shattered and routed, and my opponent had three
divisions lined up to attack on that flank. I ordered my 2nd Division
to move from Center Bridge to North Bridge, and my Cavalry Reserve to
move to the town behind Center Bridge. My 2nd Division activated its
orders immediately, and by 1015 my center was naked. My orders to the
Cavalry Division were to arrive at 1030.
At 1015 I saw my opponent's cavalry begin to shake into formation and
advance ... but fortunately my opponent sent them toward the ford,
rather than toward Center Bridge, because ...
At 1030, my Cavalry Division failed to activate its orders! This was
the second time they'd failed to activate orders (even with the bonus
for being in reserve; bad die rolls), so I had no choice but to send
my C-in-C to *personally* fetch them. My C-in-C arrived at 1045 and
*finally* got them moving toward Center Bridge.
More importantly, though I didn't know it at the time, my opponent's
lead division reached its objective (the town on the far side of North
Bridge); he didn't want to attack my fresh 2nd Division across the
bridge, so he halted ... and left an ominous column of road-bound
divisions stacked up behind the lead division. Even worse (for him),
there was a small hill blocking his road-bound divisions' view of the
Center Bridge, and he'd decided to take a risk and have his C-in-C
lead a small "grand battery" (two 12# batteries) over Center Bridge.
(Although these decisions may seem utterly stupid to some, my opponent
was my 8-year-old (at the time) son, and these were the *only* signi-
ficant mistakes he made in the entire battle.)
At 1115, my cavalry arrived behind Center Bridge (at this point, it
had been open for a full hour!), and the British attack hit at 1130.
I routed it immediately, and my opponent's C-in-C was caught up in the
rout. This spelled disaster for the Brits, as their C-in-C spent the
next 45 minutes running for his life, and was thus unable to respond
at the most critical juncture in the battle. My cavalry pursued him
across the bridge, swung 'round the hill, and smashed into his road-
bound infantry divisions stacked up behind North Bridge. By the time
the division COs were aware of the danger, it was too late to form
square, and I decimated them in a half-hour engagement.
By 1245, my opponent's position was fatally compromised. He managed a
brilliant withdrawal, rallying "provisional" divisions around his few
remaining generals and guns, sending a flying column at my C-in-C (I'd
left him exposed) to keep *me* from organizing a coup de grace, and
extracted about 50% of his original force by around 1630. I'd won a
tactical victory, but my inability to deliver the crushing blow meant
that I'd have to fight him again to rejoin my main force.
>Cris, I am looking forward to you actually responding to what I have
>asked here. But, frankly, Cris, I don't see how you can defend NB on
>my very own terms: that is, LoG's very own design objectives. I guess
>that's why I found your comment as absolutely insulting as you no doubt
>intended it to be.
I'll stand by my comments regarding ATOW-NB, as should be apparent
from the above report. That entire battle turned on precisely the
issues you raise in your introduction to LoG: written, persistent
orders; time, distance, and uncertainty; and the risks inherent when
commanders take personal charge of tactical situations. My comments
were NOT intended to insult you, or LoG.
What are the differences between LoG and ATOW-NB? I'll suggest three:
(a) ATOW is event-driven, whereas LoG is time-driven, and I feel that
event-driven models are better for simulating the grand-tactical role;
(b) ATOW-NB has fewer tactical details, which means grand-tactical
decisions are more dispositive. In ATOW-NB, there is little room to
rescue a grand-tactical blunder with tactical brilliance;
(c) ATOW-NB is more elegant, and thus easier to learn. My 8-year-old
son had mastered the mechanics of ATOW-NB within half an hour.
If you still consider this an insult, you may be too thin-skinned to
survive on r.g.m.h. On the other hand, if having read this note, you
begin to question your comments regarding my "bad faith," "skewed and
limited" opinions, lack of "courtesy," and the like, an apology would
not be inappropriate at this point.
Cris
"Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground."
-- Anonymous
MSiggins
<kwe...@interaccess.com> writes:
Many thanks. Picked up MWAN today, and wrote off to both.
Mike Siggins
"The essential matter of history is not what happened but what people
thought or said happened". Maitland
kwenker
Campaign. While you don't need the Campaign module to enjoy
the Tactical, it does add to it. Rally Once More is also good,
but I still prefer the former, having used both.
Matt DLM
abbreviation like IMHO).
Matt DeLaMater
Matt DLM
Did you say "Napoleon's Battles excellent fighting rules"?
Matt
Michael Farley
kwenker (kwe...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: I definitely recommend Carnage & Glory, and the new Manassas 2
: the Tactical, it does add to it. Rally Once More is also good,
: but I still prefer the former, having used both.
I havent had a chance to see either of these two. BUT I was wondering if
there was some generic game assistant out tere. Something to keep track
of a map and unit locations. And at best a double blind system allosing
players to input moves and the computer informing players where a
spotting occurs!
Some one aware of something out there that will do this!?????!?!??!
mike
er...@netcom.com
