|
Ed Cogburn -> (3/21/2001 1:06:00 PM)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, I think the HQ's are nessacary. Operations are only the means of carrying out Stratagy. And this system is not tactical. Units get their combat value by adding the different equippment/morale/exp/readiness levels and then comparing to the targets. HQ are the source of supply replacements leadership. (There could be a different method)
Sure, supplies, replacements and leadership come from the higher command, but why does this *require* a separate HQ unit? This is also true of air units, so do we need air force HQs too?
quote:
Independent corps do not reflect how units are employed.
How do they not? Many board and computer games operate at the corps level.
quote:
In a Grand Stratgic game a whole army is one counter and time passess a month at a time or a season at a time.
Says who? 3R is Grand Strategy and its corps based, not one army per unit.
quote:
I think the weekly turns are much better and the player gets to control the operations of his army more.
You mean the player is required to do more micromanagement. If I wanted micromanagement I'd play Alpha Centauri. I want a grand strategy game that doesn't bog me down in an unnecessary operational layer.
quote:
(perhaps too much in this system) Maybe a system of giving the HQ's a target and then having it move its formations
(but now you need a good AI)
We have that in Pac and Wir, and how many people actually use the AI to hand off less important chores? Practically none of use, since AIs are generally stupid. Road to Moscow was trying to hide operational complexity by using an AI, instead of forcing the player to do the grunt work, but that is probably the fatal flaw in RtM and why it never materialized.
quote:
What I really like about a smaller level game is that in the large scale ones they just make the germans 10 and the french 2 and where is the stratagy.
My idea would use corps composed of divisions and independent units like WiR, not arbitrary combat values like '3-3' or '4-6'. The game would use supplies, readiness, leadership, and a good strategy to decide campaigns.
quote:
France lost because of bad leadership and a bad plan. Not because of bad soldiers or equipment. I would like a game that would show whether France had to fall in 6 weeks, whether a Germany that planned to invade England from the start could make an invasion, or put the Med first plan into effect to see what happens. Not a replay of the War (I know how it went, I want to see how it could have went) For my purpose the scale of West Front/War in Russia is perfect. All I need is a start date and a map of Europe from Spain to the Urals and from Norway to North Africa. Naval rules like Pac War and a set of diplomacy rules for dealing with neutrals. Several scenarios come to mind. 1. Germany tries to conguer the world (they must invade Soviet Union by a certain date unless the Soviet Union invades them first) 2. The germans try to make a strong Germany (They are not required to invade anybody)(However points are awarded to players based on control of resource ect) 3. A free for all where each Nation has a player and they make their own alliances and score points for their team.
A free for all where each Nation makes it's own alliances but scores points for them selves. Players are out when they surrender to another nation (of course nations like Germany must score considerably more points then a nation like Poland or France. (I would suggest France get an ally that can help it like Russia) Oh well I am going off to dream land again.
None of this explains why we have to have physical HQ units.
What you're describing is a monster game. One week turns, PacWar rules for naval action, WiR rules for ground action, with a scad of units (ground, air, naval) to move and control: Ouch. I'd buy it, Mogami, but we may be the only two that buy it. :)
|
|
|
|
