quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

The problem with the phrase "do the right thing" is that the "right thing" is actually different for different people.

Think if the French would have responded "Give us some fuel and food then we will sail to Cayenne!" I actually think that FDR would have provided the fuel and food if he would have been asked to do so.

Otherwise, maybe some French ships actually do get taken over by the Axis. And/Or the French fleet is available at Casablanca, et al, when the Torch invasion is going on. Or even at Tunis when the German land reinforcements arrive, then go aboard said ships before Darlan switches sides . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

The problem with the phrase "do the right thing" is that the "right thing" is actually different for different people.

Think if the French would have responded "Give us some fuel and food then we will sail to Cayenne!" I actually think that FDR would have provided the fuel and food if he would have been asked to do so.

Otherwise, maybe some French ships actually do get taken over by the Axis. And/Or the French fleet is available at Casablanca, et al, when the Torch invasion is going on. Or even at Tunis when the German land reinforcements arrive, then go aboard said ships before Darlan switches sides . . .

warspite1

Well naturally I am talking about 'do the right thing' with a 21st Century lens. And defeating A. Hitler is doing the right thing in that context.

I don't know what you mean about food and fuel and the French response. It is difficult to envisage a scenario where, less than a month after the armistice, France goes against the agreement and then expects Hitler to simply take it on the chin. Hitler, I suspect, would have collapsed Vichy there and then - and the life expectancy of Petain, Darlan and co suddenly dropped by a huge factor.

There is no reason to believe - with hindsight and given everything we now know - that there would have been any different outcome in terms of French ships and the Axis as a result of no Menace. Why would there be? Darlan said the fleet wouldn't fall into German hands and ultimately he was right. But Churchill didn't know that, and given the veracity of Hitler's previous promises, could be forgiven for not trusting the Germans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

The problem with the phrase "do the right thing" is that the "right thing" is actually different for different people.

Think if the French would have responded "Give us some fuel and food then we will sail to Cayenne!" I actually think that FDR would have provided the fuel and food if he would have been asked to do so.

Otherwise, maybe some French ships actually do get taken over by the Axis. And/Or the French fleet is available at Casablanca, et al, when the Torch invasion is going on. Or even at Tunis when the German land reinforcements arrive, then go aboard said ships before Darlan switches sides . . .

warspite1

Well naturally I am talking about 'do the right thing' with a 21st Century lens. And defeating A. Hitler is doing the right thing in that context.

I don't know what you mean about food and fuel and the French response. It is difficult to envisage a scenario where, less than a month after the armistice, France goes against the agreement and then expects Hitler to simply take it on the chin. Hitler, I suspect, would have collapsed Vichy there and then - and the life expectancy of Petain, Darlan and co suddenly dropped by a huge factor.

There is no reason to believe - with hindsight and given everything we now know - that there would have been any different outcome in terms of French ships and the Axis as a result of no Menace. Why would there be? Darlan said the fleet wouldn't fall into German hands and ultimately he was right. But Churchill didn't know that, and given the veracity of Hitler's previous promises, could be forgiven for not trusting the Germans.

The Germans did not allow the Vichy French much fuel for their fleet so it could not sail away. I presume that food on board would also be somewhat limited as well.

But there were Vichy possessions in the Americas so it would not have been a defection, just a redeployment. Fuel could have been transferred every couple of days but never enough to sail to the Atlantic French ports. The US Navy could have gone along as well.

But if you want uncertainity in the game, then if the British don't attack the French fleet then there could be random events happening to said fleet.

Of course, you could also have France fight on without a Vichy government forming or French North Africa not joining a Vichy government as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepBlack

This is another gaping hole in the PC Wargaming OOB:

Strategic Vietnam 60's - 70's.

Seems a little bit odd that not a single
dedicated strategic game exists for the Vietnam War?
(At least I am not aware of any for PC)

Yes, I know there are tactical games of various
sorts and maybe Art of War scenarios but not anything
custom built and dedicated to the big picture.

Is it simply because it is felt to be an unpopular subject
and would not sell well?

I confess the subject had scant interest for me until
I read Max Hastings book.

I feel a card driven geo-political layer meshed with
traditional military mechanics would be great!

"Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa Vietnam"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

The problem with the phrase "do the right thing" is that the "right thing" is actually different for different people.

Think if the French would have responded "Give us some fuel and food then we will sail to Cayenne!" I actually think that FDR would have provided the fuel and food if he would have been asked to do so.

Otherwise, maybe some French ships actually do get taken over by the Axis. And/Or the French fleet is available at Casablanca, et al, when the Torch invasion is going on. Or even at Tunis when the German land reinforcements arrive, then go aboard said ships before Darlan switches sides . . .

warspite1

Well naturally I am talking about 'do the right thing' with a 21st Century lens. And defeating A. Hitler is doing the right thing in that context.

I don't know what you mean about food and fuel and the French response. It is difficult to envisage a scenario where, less than a month after the armistice, France goes against the agreement and then expects Hitler to simply take it on the chin. Hitler, I suspect, would have collapsed Vichy there and then - and the life expectancy of Petain, Darlan and co suddenly dropped by a huge factor.

There is no reason to believe - with hindsight and given everything we now know - that there would have been any different outcome in terms of French ships and the Axis as a result of no Menace. Why would there be? Darlan said the fleet wouldn't fall into German hands and ultimately he was right. But Churchill didn't know that, and given the veracity of Hitler's previous promises, could be forgiven for not trusting the Germans.

The Germans did not allow the Vichy French much fuel for their fleet so it could not sail away. I presume that food on board would also be somewhat limited as well.

But there were Vichy possessions in the Americas so it would not have been a defection, just a redeployment. Fuel could have been transferred every couple of days but never enough to sail to the Atlantic French ports. The US Navy could have gone along as well.

But if you want uncertainity in the game, then if the British don't attack the French fleet then there could be random events happening to said fleet.

Of course, you could also have France fight on without a Vichy government forming or French North Africa not joining a Vichy government as well.

warspite1

Sorry I referred to Menace earlier - should have said Catapult.

The ships had enough to get to Toulon, there would have been nothing to stop them getting to Gibraltar and being topped up.

Sailing to those possessions in the Americas was one of the options given to the French.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Dream Game? There is one I’d love to see (and may have mentioned it previously)

War in the Mediterranean June 1940 – May 1943 (so would start with Il Duce’s fateful decision to take Italy to war on 10 June 1940 – and end with the Allies evicting the Axis from North Africa)

The game would be a highly detailed air, land and sea game. Daily turns.

For the land and air component, I would want squadron and battalion sized units with NATO symbols.

For the naval element the game would have almost a game within a game. The naval battles would be fought on an almost real-time basis. The units employed would be worked out and the orders given. Movement would then speed through until point of first contact – at which point phases are played out until contact is lost and the time speeds up until contact is made once more.

Great attention to detail would be made to ensure that all the variables that upset many a plan could intervene - naval/air communication issues / intercepting enemy comms or part thereof / bad weather / mechanical issues.

The political machinations of that theatre would be represented in all its myriad of opportunities and costs – or for those seeking more realism, then there would be an ‘historical’ scenario; The British refuse to give up Malta, but the Axis don’t understand why they should invade. There in a nutshell is why the war developed as it did and was so costly to the RN and such a wasted opportunity for the RM.

The game would be aesthetically spectacular; rich, colourful, easy on the eye with plenty of zoom levels for us old timers.

I can’t wait – when does this get made Matrix?

Don't forget the penalty for not attacking the French fleet.

warspite1

Well that is just one of the many, many what-ifs. But I don't know that there is any tangible evidence that points to a specific penalty:

- So if one decides there is a penalty for not doing so then what would that be? And based on what? Did this action really make much difference in Washington for example? Yes supposedly it confirmed the British were serious, but did anything happen that wouldn't have otherwise?

- But then what if the British give the ultimatum, and Gensoul actually does his job (you had one job Gensoul) and gives the full details to Darlan - does that make a difference? Would the game allow a small % chance that Darlan grows a set and does the right thing?

- But if going down the flights of fancy route, then is there also a small % chance that Somerville says "nah, Gensoul is my bro innit bruv, and bros before er... well that doesn't rhymne. Anyways, this ain't happenin' on my watch dude, I'm outta here"

The problem with the phrase "do the right thing" is that the "right thing" is actually different for different people.

Think if the French would have responded "Give us some fuel and food then we will sail to Cayenne!" I actually think that FDR would have provided the fuel and food if he would have been asked to do so.

Otherwise, maybe some French ships actually do get taken over by the Axis. And/Or the French fleet is available at Casablanca, et al, when the Torch invasion is going on. Or even at Tunis when the German land reinforcements arrive, then go aboard said ships before Darlan switches sides . . .

warspite1

Well naturally I am talking about 'do the right thing' with a 21st Century lens. And defeating A. Hitler is doing the right thing in that context.

I don't know what you mean about food and fuel and the French response. It is difficult to envisage a scenario where, less than a month after the armistice, France goes against the agreement and then expects Hitler to simply take it on the chin. Hitler, I suspect, would have collapsed Vichy there and then - and the life expectancy of Petain, Darlan and co suddenly dropped by a huge factor.

There is no reason to believe - with hindsight and given everything we now know - that there would have been any different outcome in terms of French ships and the Axis as a result of no Menace. Why would there be? Darlan said the fleet wouldn't fall into German hands and ultimately he was right. But Churchill didn't know that, and given the veracity of Hitler's previous promises, could be forgiven for not trusting the Germans.

The Germans did not allow the Vichy French much fuel for their fleet so it could not sail away. I presume that food on board would also be somewhat limited as well.

But there were Vichy possessions in the Americas so it would not have been a defection, just a redeployment. Fuel could have been transferred every couple of days but never enough to sail to the Atlantic French ports. The US Navy could have gone along as well.

But if you want uncertainity in the game, then if the British don't attack the French fleet then there could be random events happening to said fleet.

Of course, you could also have France fight on without a Vichy government forming or French North Africa not joining a Vichy government as well.

warspite1

Sorry I referred to Menace earlier - should have said Catapult.

The ships had enough to get to Toulon, there would have been nothing to stop them getting to Gibraltar and being topped up.

Sailing to those possessions in the Americas was one of the options given to the French.

If I remember correctly, there was not enough time for a response to and from higher headquarters besides the perceived insult of a lower ranking officer going to see the French.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I used to play quite a lot of silent hunter 3 and I would like to see a game along similar lines but with surface raiders like Hipper and Graf Spee. With emphasis on realism, both graphics and gameplay.

I would also like a battle of the Atlantic and Mediterranean monster strategy game. Kind of WITE on water [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Everybody who has posted a dream game, start writing . . . [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Everybody who has posted a dream game, start writing . . . [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Computer Der Weltkrieg series

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Everybody who has posted a dream game, start writing . . . [8D]

Before writing, I prefer to learn the necessary technology and to think gameplay.
Jumping into writing is an error because you will rewrite and rewrite and ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No coding yet, just write it out in whatever language that you want to use that is readable