Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I would like to know if a campaign is mainly linking scenarios together...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I would like to know if a campaign is mainly linking scenarios together...

Good question.

Yes, a campaign game using the current game engine (plus new capabilities) would have to be a series of short, linked scenarios.

Why?

If the Campaign for North Africa was a single scenario at the current Desert War scale then it would be ~2,250 turns long (September 1940 to November 1942). If there were some VERY dedicated playtesters playing this campaign scenario at one turn per week, then it would take them about 43 years to play it and some time more to provide feedback. If they could squeak in just one turn per day, then we could expect some solid feedback in about six years...~2024. Then we could tweak the game based on their findings and send it back out for a validation playtest. If we got the fixes nailed right off the bat then a 2030 publication date could be locked in concrete.

Good news is, as you have pointed out, it would be possible to provide player interactions between limited turn-length scenarios that could allow for unit-level replacements, re-supply, and/or "power-ups" based on battle experiences from the previously played scenario.

Bottomline is the 6 and 12 hour turns of the Desert War engine allow the player to get down into the nitty-gritty of operational combat; the engine does not handle multi-year strategic situations at this scale. Hopefully someday the game engine will fully support multi-day or week-long time frames as TOAW does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

What would take it to another level of immersion for me would be for the player to have the ability to choose historically available forces for the "in between" scenario times. Maybe on some type of point system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Love campaign! A shame though it seems bcgames seems more into upping the scale of the game, where I'd be very excited about reducing the scale to more of a tactical game, say coy and below, preferably platoon though single vehicle units at 75m a hex. This would instantly become a must follow game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Love campaign! A shame though it seems bcgames seems more into upping the scale of the game, where I'd be very excited about reducing the scale to more of a tactical game, say coy and below, preferably platoon though single vehicle units at 75m a hex. This would instantly become a must follow game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

...modeling smaller battles gives a developer a more focused scope and scale to build a competent AI...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

...It is after all an operational level game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I have an idea that would reduce counter density on the mid to large size scenarios. Instead of having all units start at Battalion size or smaller, how about the majority of units starting out at regiment size, but with the built in game feature to breakdown the regiment into (3) Battalions. The Battalion level is needed when spreading out a defense, or surrounding an enemy unit, etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I have an idea that would reduce counter density on the mid to large size scenarios. Instead of having all units start at Battalion size or smaller, how about the majority of units starting out at regiment size, but with the built in game feature to breakdown the regiment into (3) Battalions. The Battalion level is needed when spreading out a defense, or surrounding an enemy unit, etc...

I think that would be a good move in the right direction. I've been thinking about this idea a lot...because decisions about unit scale, ground scale, time scale, stacking, unit type capabilities--all impact how the game plays. Diverting from the current game models is...re-modeling years of playtested work.

Breakdown/Build-up of in-game units is a way that has been used in numerous board and computer games...splitting things into three...unless there were only two or four or whatever historically--TO&Es are inconvenient to the "Rule of Three". On the other hand, the simplicity side (coding) sez three is probably the best way to go. I would certainly support such an approach.

On the other, other hand, TO&Es are...and task organizations are too. So maybe a Roll-up/Roll-out is a better approach to replicating actual combat operations. The first (and only) place I've seen this done is in Jim Lunsford's wargame--Decisive Action. Units are attached/detached to/from a HQs unit. The HQs unit represents a roll-up of all the capabilities of all the different unit types assigned to that HQs. IOW, a infantry regimental HQs with three infantry battalions, a regimental cannon company, a direct support artillery battalion, engineer company, and anti-aircraft battery--could all be rolled into one unit on the game board with a single attack, defense, and movement factor--and all the special capabilities (shock, engineer, AA) automatically rolled-up into that single unit...and...the regiment can be rolled-out to extract its various components as the player desires to create new task organizations (with a cost of course).

Dunno. Prolly too hard. We'll see what the coding cost/benefits are compared to other user-defined requirements for the next game--a campaign-like experience on the Eastern Front with smaller scenarios and a better GUI.

Decisions, decisions...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

...I do like the Battalion scale as it is, and I am really looking forward to seeing this scale in a east front setting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Love campaign! A shame though it seems bcgames seems more into upping the scale of the game, where I'd be very excited about reducing the scale to more of a tactical game, say coy and below, preferably platoon though single vehicle units at 75m a hex. This would instantly become a must follow game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames


Desert War in the East at battalion level is not War in the East, it's not War in Army Group South, it's not even War in 6.Armee...it's War in XIV Panzer Korps and/or War in LI Korps, for example.

Smaller, shorter, low-stack, campaign, GUI. This conundrum requires more puzzling to find a solution acceptable to the most players and the two guys that need to pull it all together.

Onwards!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

That would work for me---corps level is just fine.

Maybe the answer to the battalion level...is to change the hex sizes so that...unit density is lower. This would preserve the uniqueness of the smaller unit types...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

That would work for me---corps level is just fine.

Maybe the answer to the battalion level...is to change the hex sizes so that...unit density is lower. This would preserve the uniqueness of the smaller unit types...

I think this may be the way to go in the future. A high point of Desert War is its ability to show the different strengths and weaknesses of different types of units in relation to each other--every unit isn't calculated to be a stronger or weaker version of infantry. There is actually a rock-paper-scissors quality to each unit type--whether in offense or defense.

But...The rest of World War II does not take place in the desert.

Perhaps there needs to be a scale change to move forward--to Europa. The central consideration for scale is hex size. The larger the area covered by a hex, the larger the unit size required to "cover" the hex while keeping stacking to one or two units per hex (on average). The higher you go up in the scale/echelon of command of units the lower the differentiation between unit types...and when you get to the top? Just one question for ground units--Is it an infantry or armor army? A game where ground ops have to be reduced to grunts, treadheads, and zoomies making air fleet-sized appearances. The good quality about strategic-minded games.

Now...back to the operational level we all want for the next game; where combinations of "the uniqueness of the smaller unit types" can still be explored from their pedestal. A reduction in hex size to one mile per hex (versus the current two), retains the uniqueness of unit and reduces the number of units per hex by half. Instead of two battalions and two companies per hex (or eight companies), it becomes one battalion and one company per hex (or four companies). Movement factors double (a potential problem). Artillery and heavy AA ranges double (a potential problem). And 1600 meters is at the furthest extent of direct fire systems in a European environment (due to terrain masking).

Still...scenarios at this scale (one mile/hex) can't have more than two corps per scenario (Large). That's what I hear. Scenarios need to be Twitter-sized...140 units or less per scenario.

Keep these observations coming. Somebody has the golden apple.

Onwards!

quote:

ORIGINAL: harley9699

You keep saying "Onwards!".
Does that mean you guys are done with this game now? (except for the occasional bug-fix)