Vic
Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline
|
Previously published on the VR weblog.
Prior to release of our new game BARBAROSSA we are publishing a series of developer notes by designer Cameron Harris.
Be sure to visit www.vrdesigns.nl for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs
Hitler
Hitler was an outlier. Here was a domineering, driven, charismatic man who exerted a level of control well beyond any reasonable expectations of somebody perched at the very apex of a command pyramid. That those same personal qualities that enabled him to overpower and overshadow all those beneath him also drove him in directions best described as dark and sinister is not in dispute.
He was a most unpleasant individual but, having acknowledged this, it’s his influence on the command structure that is of particular interest from a design point of view.
The German Player is firmly ensconced within the hierarchy. Hitler dominates from the top. How do you accommodate the reality of Hitler’s influence without turning the Player into a wooden puppet that jerks to the string pulls of a computerised Führer? Yet the Hitler factor was so strong that to exclude it from a game modelling Operational Command would be a major oversight.
Disassociating the game from Hitler’s dark side is an easy first step. That’s the low hanging fruit plucked and consumed. We’ll have to jump for the rest.
Hitler didn’t help matters. Rather than having clearly defined goals for his invasion of Russia, he kept changing his mind. One moment he was charging towards Leningrad, the next the Ukraine. Like a child with Attention Deficit Disorder he was easily distracted and would flip flop from one objective to the next.
At the commencement of Operation Barbarossa there was a specific plan in place which was largely followed as originally laid out. But it ceased after the Battle of Smolensk. The plan anticipated that by then the Red Army would have been defeated. Indeed it suffered such horrendous casualties that, if it had been a boxer, it would have been flat on its back on the canvas. But rather than stay down for the count it staggered, bloodied and dazed, to its feet. It possessed reserves hither to unknown by the Germans. They kept punching, landing blow after blow. It reeled and stumbled but stayed upright.
The Germans must have thought they were fighting a Bolshevik Golem. No matter how hard they hit, how often they hit or where they hit, it just wouldn’t die.
When Plan A succeeded tactically but failed strategically, the Germans were left in a conundrum. Tensions boiled over between Hitler and his High Command. Everybody had a different view on what to do next. There was no clarity or consensus.
It’s no surprise that Hitler became fickle and changeable. He wasn’t favourably disposed to taking the advice of the upper echelons of the Prussian Officer Corps at the best of times but when they failed to agree among themselves as to the best course of action he fell back onto his own devices.
Plan B was rapidly followed by Plan C which, in turn, was swept off the table to make room for Plan D.
To accommodate the ‘whim of the Führer’ the game has Hitler calling a conference to discuss strategy roughly once a month. There are five of these and it’s not guaranteed that one will be called every month. There is a measure of uncertainty. Some will be skipped. Except the last one in early November. That’s a given as it’s necessary to provide certainty for the Player.
At the completion of each conference Hitler will issue a new, numbered, ‘Directive’ that will outline his goals in order of priority. The Player has, depending on his chosen strategy, the ability to exert a measure of influence.
Mechanically we now have a reasonably realistic facsimile of Hitler’s decision making process. At irregular intervals the Player will be summonsed to a conference where upon Hitler will arbitrarily decide which objectives are to be given precedence over others. But what impact will this have on the Player? Will they be forced to comply with the fickle demands of the Führer?
Well that depends. Right at the start of the game they choose one of three over riding strategies that they will follow. The first requires them to support Hitler and take whatever is his current objective. As this is a moving target there are some obvious disadvantages. These are offset by assistance that Hitler is willing to give along the way.
At the other extreme ‘Demand Military Independence’ will have the Player standing up for his right to fight the war on his own terms. Without assistance and with the risk of getting fired if he fails to cover his flanks politically.
The interaction between the Player’s approach and Hitler’s changeable goals now becomes apparent. With one approach – Support Hitler – the outcome of a conference becomes vitally important and there is a need for the Player to be able to place himself in a position where he can exert some sway over what is decided.
With a different approach – Demand Military Independence – what Hitler decides is irrelevant as the Player has determined to tread his own path, albeit with some risk attached. Here we’ve got a workable mechanism that allows the Player to trade independence for ongoing assistance.
But that’s not all. The Hitler factor is woven into the fabric of the game even deeper. Every decision that is taken which aligns with Hitler’s current primary objective will be easier to make. It will cost less Political Points. It will be the path of least resistance.
Conversely a decision that is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of the Führer will be a harder road to tread with a Political Point premium being charged. To highlight this consider a straightforward fuel allocation decision. Perhaps you decide that you’d like Armeegruppe Mitte to have a greater share at the expense of the other two theatres. If Hitler has his heart set on Moscow then you’ll receive a discount but if Moscow is sitting third or fourth on his current list of priorities then you’ll be paying a premium in Political Points.
It’s a subtle way of reminding the Player that, while you are free to do as you wish, the view of the Führer needs to be taken into account.
Let’s not forget the fiddling. Hitler couldn’t help himself. As Barbarossa progressed he inserted himself more and more into day to day operational matters that were well below his remit as supreme commander. That book on Delegation previously mentioned? In one ear and out the other.
The game models this by applying intermittent movement penalties to a randomly selected Panzergruppe as these were the ‘bright, shiny, light’ formations that most caught the Führer’s attention. The level of interference is minor but enough be an annoyance. The frequency of the interference is keyed into the Player’s chosen approach. It’s assumed that if you’ve chosen to ‘Support Hitler’ then you are sufficiently inside the tent for him to meddle more often than if standing at the entrance, one foot on either side, with a ‘Moscow or Bust’ approach. A big advantage to the ‘Demand Military Independence’ approach is the total absence of interference by the Führer. He is standing off to one side, impatiently waiting for you to drop the ball.
The ability to shift a Panzergruppe from one theatre to another, as previously mentioned, requires the assent of Hitler. If the two of you aren’t on speaking terms then your strategic flexibility will be constrained.
Which highlights the focus that the game has given the ‘H’ factor. He’s there. He’s important. The Player is given scope to work with him, or against him, with corresponding trade-offs but without being forced to don a straight jacket.
Cheers,
Cameron
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
|
Printable Version
Barbarossa Developer Notes #6: My Boss is a Psychopath - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread