Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jack54

Well my dream would be 2nd Kharkov at the current 2 mile scale but that would be a true monster.

Another possibility could be ONE large scenario then that scenario broken down into smaller scenarios almost a case study.

Sprinkle in a few non related Small scenarios for flavor. ( 1 or 2 day things).

(Brother against Brother did something similar with the American Civil War. Manassas was the large scenario which was broken down into variants of Sudley Springs Ford, Blackburn's Ford, various time starts and what if's.Then they through in unrelated battles like Mill Springs and Williamsburg)


I'm just thinking outloud... whatever you decide I'll come along for the ride

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

The way ahead:
* Half the Desert War hex scale from 2-miles to one mile per hex (1600 meters).
* "Double" the time scale from three to five turns per day (4 day, 1 night).
* Retain the company/battalion scale and all the unique, unit type capabilities found in Desert War.
* Add new unit types (bridging engineers, partisans, security, ski units).
* Scenarios should consist of no more than two corps per side.
* Average scenario length should be on average two to three days time (10-15 turns)...some shorter (a day--5 turns), some longer (6 days--30 turns). None longer.
* Bottom Line (My Read): Many like/want smaller, shorter scenarios. Some want larger, longer scenarios. The Priority goes to what The Many want and what we can do.

What do you want in The East?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Will some specialist units still be represented at the platoon scale?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames
However, if the situation represented by a scenario requires platoon-level units to work properly and/or represent the historical situation--then we will include platoon-sized units of the type required (e.g. Operazione E, Battle of Sollum, and The Rats vs The Ram). The capability to add/include platoons in a scenario will remain within the game editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrClock

A database of units and a summary of their history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrClock
A database of units and a summary of their history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrClock
A database of units and a summary of their history.

+1000, plus mega bonus points if exportable/importable.

quote:



The way ahead:

* Half the Desert War hex scale from 2-miles to one mile per hex (1600 meters).
* "Double" the time scale from three to five turns per day (4 day, 1 night).
* Retain the company/battalion scale and all the unique, unit type capabilities found in Desert War.
* Add new unit types (bridging engineers, partisans, security, ski units).
* Scenarios should consist of no more than two corps per side.
* Average scenario length should be on average two to three days time (10-15 turns)...some shorter (a day--5 turns), some longer (6 days--30 turns). None longer.
* Bottom Line (My Read): Many like/want smaller, shorter scenarios. Some want larger, longer scenarios. The Priority goes to what The Many want and what we can do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

Clearly, too many pieces. An Eastern Front game would be worse.

I would suggest removing the many separate AT sections and other such units and add "them" to the divisional HQ to dole out as needed. The receiving unit would have a bump up in combat strength, perhaps a small AT capability, etc. that can be added to the individual infantry battalion. You could do the same with Artillery. They could be either added to an individual battalion as support (say, a 25 pounder used as AT) or the artillery added to the infantry division and provide simple support points per combat.

Even engineers could be "eliminated" and made into a support capability that is doled out to the maneuver unit.

This would get rid of A LOT of clicking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth
Hi, well there is a Command And Control penalty. Units may be delayed before they move (so they might not even move). This depends on the side's CCV (Commmand Control Value).
Units won't however go off on their own for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
...I would like to see an optional rule (since some players don't like the idea of not having control) where the computer does not allow the player to use his units as he expected. A variety of modifiers could be used to adjust that check. The model I am thinking of is from the Battalion Combat System (BCS) from MMP - a board game. It is called a "SNAFU" roll You roll per HQ to see whether the units of the HQ can move normally, half or zero. Since it is randomly determined, it does add in some interesting situations that are more realistic. For example, planning a concentric attack and then one of your HQ fails its roll and cannot move up to support the combat that you had planned - resulting in a partial, ineffective attack, MUCH more realistic in keeping with operational command. In the game, the WEGO is nice, but it would be interesting to see (as in real life) if a unit doesn't react to your orders whatsoever...

...Thoughts?