The Political Question?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Political Question?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The Political Question?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Political Question? - 10/5/2009 7:09:21 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Ok we have the military situation sketched out, except for the free production rebels. But what about the two nut cases in charge of Germany and the Soviet Union? Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders?

The one that stands out is forcing the capture of Kiev by Hitler instead of marching on to Moscow. It might be nice to have the politco's give objectives that must be taken or dire consequences happen, like all your corp commanders are executed or loss of victory points until you do what Stalin tells you. It doesn't have to be historical like the capture of Kiev but simplely meddling by the two looney toons, Adolph and Joe. I think Stalin after a while turned things over to his commanders but I am not really sure.

This politico interference was something the generals had to deal with along with supply, armor and air superiority and manpower shortages. To not have it in a historical game really makes it un-historical or a fantasy what if ... what if Hitler wasn't such a dork!!

< Message edited by Capt Cliff -- 10/5/2009 7:11:34 PM >

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

Post #: 1

RE: The Political Question? - 10/5/2009 9:58:22 PM

AZKGungHo

Posts: 509
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

IF that was going to be done, and I doubt it, it would have to be as an optional feature. Because these kind of restrictions end up ruining the game as a game, and usually end up ruining it as history as well. I mean, if we're going to do this, how about historical weather, etc.?

At some point you have to just let the players play if you know what I mean?

_____________________________

"In Arduis Fidelis"
Louie Marsh

Books:
Once A Raider� http://tinyurl.com/89mfnnk
Getting Real - http://tinyurl.com/7zhcjlq
Websites:
www.usmcraiders.com
discipleup.org

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 2

RE: The Political Question? - 10/6/2009 7:15:51 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AZ Gung Ho

IF that was going to be done, and I doubt it, it would have to be as an optional feature.� Because these kind of restrictions end up ruining the game as a game, and usually end up ruining it as history as well.� I mean, if we're going to do this, how about historical weather, etc.?

At some point you have to just let the players play if you know what I mean?

Then the game is non-historical without interference from the two supreme leaders in some capacity! Would be like not having any weather at all or unlimited supply!! WIR had something if I am not mistaken, use to see messages about Stalin retiring or something to that affect. No production is one thing but an incomplete military command structure is another. It's a fanatasy game then of what if there was no Hitler or Stalin, I am free to do what I want!!

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to AZKGungHo)

Post #: 3

RE: The Political Question? - 10/6/2009 7:25:27 PM

AZKGungHo

Posts: 509
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Aren't almost all wargames "fantasy" in that respect? That's long been a selling point, "You take command! If you were in command instead of [insert name here] could you win?"

If you make these games completely historical then they cease being games and simply become replays of history. I mean, since Germany had absolutely no chance at all of winning against the US, Russia and England, why even play it out?

Some things have to be fudged to make things gameable!

_____________________________

"In Arduis Fidelis"
Louie Marsh

Books:
Once A Raider� http://tinyurl.com/89mfnnk
Getting Real - http://tinyurl.com/7zhcjlq
Websites:
www.usmcraiders.com
discipleup.org

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 4

RE: The Political Question? - 10/6/2009 10:40:42 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

I think wargamers too often look at a simulation as "placing them in command" as a given historical figure or position. They believe that in playing a wargame they need to be given ONLY what their general would have had, would have known, etc. That isn't how wargames are played, however. The player of a wargame plays as a hive mind of all commanders at all levels. Sometimes there are command rules which impose command limitations on units (radii, movement limits, supply limits), but every decision in the game is made by the player knowing he will be able to move x, y and z other units in a sequence he decides. The point of a wargame is what would happen if the player were in charge of everything the game gives him the opportunity to play. It has nothing to do with "what hat he is wearing".

Commercial wargames have never been about military training of officers; they're about having fun. Limiting a player to only the information or control that a von Manstein or Zhukov had would not, in my opinion, be as enjoyable as playing the game with all of the moves being those you dictated. In other words, I hope no one thinks that playing a wargame, even one as complex as WITP-AE, would make them a great general or admiral.

(in reply to AZKGungHo)

Post #: 5

RE: The Political Question? - 10/6/2009 11:56:00 PM

Duck Doc

Posts: 693
Joined: 6/9/2004
Status: offline

In Uncle Joe's case does a small caliber bullet to the back of the head cause much of a headache?

Good idea for a game with a grand strategic scale but not for this one. I would love to see a game with a free set up for both sides. Now that would result in some interesting games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders?

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 6

RE: The Political Question? - 10/7/2009 4:22:53 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

We do have automatic firing of leaders. I'm pretty sure Soviet leaders can be executed. This is based on leader wins versus losses and possibly political rating. Not sure if we'll have time or the inclination to add any other rules for High Command interference as game options.

(in reply to Duck Doc)

Post #: 7

RE: The Political Question? - 10/7/2009 7:05:29 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dale H

In Uncle Joe's case does a small caliber bullet to the back of the head cause much of a headache?

Good idea for a game with a grand strategic scale but not for this one. I would love to see a game with a free set up for both sides. Now that would result in some interesting games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders?

Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality. Nice that Sovviet general are removed, death is a finality, for lack of performance. I hope the German has that to. But it might be nice if a good general was given the axe too now and again because of some political problem. Like General Whozwitz's screwed up and insulted Adolph at a staff meeting and got sacked. They lost Gunderian that way. But mainly I was suggesting that certain military objectives be given by the Supreme leader that you had to take or you take a hit in victory points. Now you have an east front WWII game run by Napoleon.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Duck Doc)

Post #: 8

RE: The Political Question? - 10/7/2009 7:15:56 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality.

Agreed. The War in Russia, abstracting out the Supreme Commanders' meddling, would have unfolded differently. Probably drastically differently. But we may be underestimating the tricky programming involved, I'm not sure the promiscuous re-weighting of objectives would do it. Entire front sectors may need to be evaluated on the fly. And there's only so much control the player may be willing to surrender. For the designers, it's a fine line.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 9

RE: The Political Question? - 10/8/2009 4:36:39 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

Interference from higher ups should be abstractly built into the attack/defence/mvt factors and command radii and HQ effects. Consider that 100 T34s should always decimate 100 Pz111s but usually a designer builds tactical/operational inefficiency into the relative ratings such that the T34s get whipped - not because the Axis armor is better or guns better, but because of the command structure/constraints all the way up and down the line.

Marquo

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 10

RE: The Political Question? - 10/8/2009 7:19:24 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality.

Agreed. The War in Russia, abstracting out the Supreme Commanders' meddling, would have unfolded differently. Probably drastically differently. But we may be underestimating the tricky programming involved, I'm not sure the promiscuous re-weighting of objectives would do it. Entire front sectors may need to be evaluated on the fly. And there's only so much control the player may be willing to surrender. For the designers, it's a fine line.

True it is a difficult task for the programer to reflect this interference from up echelon. Perhaps a loss of supply to say Army Group South due to needs in North Africa or Italy would mimic this interfernce. But the attack on Kiev forced by Hitler stands out as a prime example of Hitler screwing up. It thru off the time table for capturing Moscow. If Moscow falls so does the Soviet Union. It was the major railhead ... all roads lead to Moscow. I still like being assignment towns to be taken by higher command, within say 4 to 6 hex's from the existing front. No reward for taking it but to ignor it causes problems.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 11

RE: The Political Question? - 10/8/2009 10:04:36 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

But the attack on Kiev forced by Hitler stands out as a prime example of Hitler screwing up. It thru off the time table for capturing Moscow.

Maybe. The Germans netted hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that encirclement. And they were unaware of the exceptional blizzard conditions that awaited the panzers. OTOH, what sensible player will waste so many divisions in a frontal assault on Stalingrad? The more you think about it, some kind of command constraint seems desirable. So, I'm on your side despite the programming challenges.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 12

RE: The Political Question? - 10/12/2009 9:17:12 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

Any command restraints need to be optional, as the fun is in exploring different strategies. It will be a sterile game if we are forced to repeat the errors and stupidity of the past.

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 13

RE: The Political Question? - 10/12/2009 5:17:03 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject.

1st/ Stalin does not have the same impact on the Stavka that Hitler had on the OKW (making it inexistent). According to a book I read on this war, the Stavka was really in charge and their generals were obedient. For the German it is quite the opposite, the OKW or H was non-existent. Decision where taken either by Hitler or by its generals, or by a round of argument between Hitlers and one of its generals.

2nd/ I do share that simulating the mind of Hitler or Stalin according to what the Player do is somewhat difficult. I think that a Multi-player for one side option can help player simulate the chain of command. One player will be player the political leader and GHQ, so not moving units per se, but it will give commands to other palyers playing the generals. So he can retire them or rewards them if they do well and obey (a motivting victory system between the generals must be designed here).

3rd/ If as all wargame we play the hive mind, I'd LOVE a free set-up. Look, setting up an army is accroding to an attack plan, if the set-up is historical, then you have to follow the historical attack plan. No what-if. If it is so, the we can factor all Hitler's/stalin intervention; historical weather (which is unrealistic by the way as it give an information no one had) and portray the special characters of all the Generals (Guderian was retired was disobedience, Paulus did not take action when ordered to, and Manstein general goes by its own plans. Have fun playing the Supreme Commander of those. The 2 Russain commander did not like each other so cooperate badly, I read once, need more information on this one).
So if you let the player have total control of all aspect of the game, it would be normal to have free set-up for Barbarossa (later scenario should have historical set-up only or limited free set-up).

That one of the failure of game like OAW that does not allow free set-up. I always feel prisonner of the historical approach / scenario designer choice for the plan. Does not mean that I don't like such game, just that sometime, i wish to try another approach and be surprised by my opponent approached.

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 12/4/2009 4:16:58 PM >

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 14

RE: The Political Question? - 10/12/2009 8:05:13 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 15

RE: The Political Question? - 10/13/2009 7:35:00 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

Yes something along those lines. For an anology how's this ... You have marriage with this game but no wife. No one to say "You playing that dam game again, you promised to take me to dinner!" So off to dinner you go and your big plans are put on hold.

Maybe once a month you get orders from HQ to do something dumb or maybe something you were already planning to do and now you get some supply to do it!!! Penalty for not complying would maybe lose of 10% supply, shipped to North Africa. Use it or lose it! There must be an a way to determine a target say not less than 3 hex's and not more that 6 and you have a month to capture it. Anyway the meddle some hen pecking by upper command is lacking, as I can see.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 16

RE: The Political Question? - 10/16/2009 8:23:27 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Yes something along those lines.

Easier said than done, I suspect. WBTS uses an area based movement system. For some reason this uber-command kind of manipulation you want seems more feasible in that format than with hexes and continuous fronts.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 17

RE: The Political Question? - 10/16/2009 11:25:53 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

Yes something along those lines. For an anology how's this ... You have marriage with this game but no wife. No one to say "You playing that dam game again, you promised to take me to dinner!" So off to dinner you go and your big plans are put on hold.

Maybe once a month you get orders from HQ to do something dumb or maybe something you were already planning to do and now you get some supply to do it!!! Penalty for not complying would maybe lose of 10% supply, shipped to North Africa. Use it or lose it! There must be an a way to determine a target say not less than 3 hex's and not more that 6 and you have a month to capture it. Anyway the meddle some hen pecking by upper command is lacking, as I can see.

The new EagleDay/Bombing The Reich has periods where the target types are mandatory, such as supporting the Italian & Normandy landings etc, shows that the game isnt played in a vacuum and that outside events do affect the game.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Capt Cliff)

Post #: 18

RE: The Political Question? - 10/17/2009 3:48:56 AM

ShaiHulud

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/19/2000
From: Waipahu, Hawaii
Status: offline

A simple method of inferring interference from above is allocation of supply to the various fronts. You want a big push in the South? Too bad! The Northern Army/Front got supply preference. No need to give ultimata to take a particular cities.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 19

RE: The Political Question? - 10/20/2009 6:41:47 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I think a lot of us like playing God in these games. That said, there's no reason why certain political considerations can't enter play in the form of political points (as above), victory points, supply or reinforcement adjustments or whatever. Such factors can nudge players in certain directions but don't absolutely require them to follow a certain course of action.

In the Civil War example the player has a choice: establish a presence in Northern Virginia and receive said political points or go all out in the west and hope the lack of political points is balanced by success in that theater. It's fun gaming to test such hypotheses. The way I see the Kiev dilemma is this: You can go all out for Moscow, but if you fail all those troops you didn't pocket in Kiev (or some other place) will come back to bite you. It's a question of taking objectives vs. destruction of enemy forces. To me there doesn't have to be a special rule in that case--it's a natural conundrum for the player to solve himself.

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to ShaiHulud)

Post #: 20

RE: The Political Question? - 10/22/2009 8:06:20 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

If it is so, the we can factor all Hitler's/stalin intervention; historical weather (which is unrealistic by the way as it give an information no one had)

Good point. If the Germans knew the severity of the winter that was around the corner than, yes, it was unwise to turn south and undertake the Kiev encirclement. But they weren't seers. So one could argue, in the interests of realism, that 'weather' should be subject to non-historical unpredictability. A better example of disastrous intervention from on high would be allowing 200K troops to be cut off and isolated in the Courland Pocket. That was pure Hitler, and a decision no sensible player is likely to make.

< Message edited by Pford -- 10/22/2009 8:07:10 PM >

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 21

RE: The Political Question? - 10/22/2009 8:23:07 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Well Guderian was German, after the Kiev move, he said lets make winter quarters...hum...Guess no one heard him. I follow his lead, smart guy, and it works...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 22

RE: The Political Question? - 12/4/2009 1:38:25 PM

Sigurd Jorsalfare

Posts: 9
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Norway
Status: offline

Some kind of random political override as an optional rule would be great. "AH wants you to take Stalingrad in 2 months" or "Joe wants you to hold Minsk for 4 weeks". I don`t like it when the player gets total freedom over operations, assignment of commanders etc.After all the progression and outcome of the Eastern Front were as Capt Cliff said heavily influenced by Dolph and Joe. Imagine FDR ordering an invasion in the Calais-area in 1943. "Pr�sident-Befehl 01".

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 23

RE: The Political Question? - 12/4/2009 4:53:23 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I could not dissagree more with the above, please do not include history in these set box games

(in reply to Sigurd Jorsalfare)

Post #: 24

RE: The Political Question? - 12/4/2009 6:51:37 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Relax, no politics in the game. You just have to deal with the same deck of cards they had, without the two assholes. Which really opens so many options for fun in the game...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 25

RE: The Political Question? - 12/11/2009 12:58:45 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I noticed in the screen shots that some generals are worth some political points.

What does the player need to do to acquire more political points?

When i have them what can i spend them on?

How do I force my oponent to lose political points?

-

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 26

RE: The Political Question? - 12/11/2009 1:15:00 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

A leaders political rating is factored into promotions and dismissals.� You can't change that number for your leaders or enemy leaders.

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 12/11/2009 1:16:15 AM >

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 27

RE: The Political Question? - 12/11/2009 1:53:20 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

And why would I want to promote or dismiss anybody?

This is a game. If I make a bad move that's my fault.

-

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 28

RE: The Political Question? - 12/11/2009 2:27:05 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

It is an historical wargame and obviously plenty of leaders were promoted and dismissed on the Eastern Front. Not all leaders are created equal. A poor one may be dismissed for losing too many battles just as a good one may get promoted for winning battles.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 29

RE: The Political Question? - 12/11/2009 3:46:49 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

Where is the benefit for the player?

(answer most hoped for: some generals are good at supply, some good at defense and some good on the attack. If the player places the right general in the right place the units beneath him gain a bonus on either the attack, or the defense or in supply. The amount of bonus each general can provide will go up and down over the game based upon how he performed his last mission)

-

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 30