Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

What capabilities do you want to see instituted in a WEGO progression of the Desert War Engine (DWE) circa 1942 Russian Front?

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

What capabilities do you want to see instituted in a WEGO progression of the Desert War Engine (DWE) circa 1942 Russian Front?

This will be a leap of faith me thinks ….

quote:

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek

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.

That sounds to me like a TODO list to get behind. Thanks for keeping the WEGO dream alive and looking forward to the East Front game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaretBale

I agree with random game generator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Totally agree on the above list PLUS:

+ linked historical scenarios for both sides (i.e follow a real unit through real engagements during the campaign!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ more terrain/weather types (for scenario development)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato'
+ bridge units!

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Hey Governato!

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.
Can you expand on this? What more beyond what is already in Desert War?

well the players have almost full info on the status and location of their own units right? That is not necessarily the case in RL. Any way to simulate that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'.
Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you expand on this though a bit? Thanks.

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value
Interesting idea. I need to think about this one. This is a Monty's War wish list item.

Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

(in reply to bcgames)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also even if only chrome would like to see actual casualty figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ in general anything that simulates Fog of War to its full extent, perhaps leaving the option of 'lifting it' for easier play if needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames
Can you expand on this? What more beyond what is already in Desert War?

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
well the players have almost full info on the status and location of their own units right? That is not necessarily the case in RL. Any way to simulate that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.

So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'...

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value...

...Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ EVENTS? Such as the ability to request (or lose!) support units/fuel/reinforcements or change objectives for additional replay value...

...Oh just simple things typical of semi random, but realistic events *during* a scenario..change of objectives from Army Group HQ , more or less fuel for a given turn, weather variability, a company being detached off map...enough to create a meaningful challenge for the commander/player who wants that.

I like it. Got some ideas on how to do it using the AI tab. More to follow...

When do we see this capability appearing? Not before Monty's Front...

As always, thanks for the feedback!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
+ Chain of Command qualities/limitations for each side, better if set via scenario options and not just 'baked in'...

The Germans+allies had an efficient "chain of command" compared to the Red Army in Summer 42, that gave them better reaction times, force coordination, resupply and movement. Any way that allows the game to simulate those differences would be welcome. IF this can be done ad the editor level, even better, so one could
try different 'what ifs' and expand the scenarios (say: what if Soviet Tank Corps had been better trained by Summer 42).

We have the Command & Control Delay Value (CCV) which can be set in the editor for each side. This value is heavily influenced by the quality and readiness of the unit. IIRC the CCV capability was added as a direct result of your input...it's been a few years now so I may be mistaken. Regardless, how to you think we should build on the CCV foundation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
I like this idea ESPECIALLY if the player is allowed to change the other player/AI allocation As in: how many VP or resources would you be willing to give up to decrease your opponent's fuel/ammos or change their time table/objectives? ...I have seen this at work in TV chef reality shows and it was really fun...

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
ah right! Glad to know I was smart at some point :). I'd extend on the concept wherever CCV or `strength/ values do not play a role already ...for example cooperation bonuses/column shift my fail for weaker units (as in: damn the artillery barrage was 20 mins late than planned!) , recon maybe more effective for certain units because staff (not planes) are better etc etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.

So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.

Desert War and the Stalingrad game do not include anything that could be described as commander stats. Can you expand on the idea of "commander stats" and how the game mechanics should account for them? Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well a useless leader can have great troops under his command and waste the lot, history is filled with useless leaders squandering their troops...Make leaders mean something like real life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
OK...…… maybe while keeping all sizes/hexes/types etc. the same a simple reduction in the number of stacking points allowed per 2km hex would do the trick. Or put another away, increase the stacking point value of all or some unit types/sizes to accomplish the same thing.

Just a thought.

Rob.

You are close to the mark. Here is my read of the situation.

With regards to the Eastern Front game, what has emerged from the postings found here and from closely-related topics found elsewhere, I conclude the following "what to do":

* Half the Desert War hex scale from 2-miles to one.
* "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.
* 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: More of the Same, but Smaller, Shorter = Sweeter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
...So if the next game is going to be smaller and shorter then I'm definitely not wasting any further money or time on this rather boring WEGO system...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
OK...…… maybe while keeping all sizes/hexes/types etc. the same a simple reduction in the number of stacking points allowed per 2km hex would do the trick. Or put another away, increase the stacking point value of all or some unit types/sizes to accomplish the same thing.

Just a thought.

Rob.

You are close to the mark. Here is my read of the situation.

With regards to the Eastern Front game, what has emerged from the postings found here and from closely-related topics found elsewhere, I conclude the following "what to do":

* Half the Desert War hex scale from 2-miles to one.
* "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.
* 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: More of the Same, but Smaller, Shorter = Sweeter.

bcgames,
Sadly Desert War isn't the WW2 WEGO game I'm looking for. I find the scale to be too tactical, can't stand having platoons as units. I also don't like the poorly modeled night turns, nothing but long day turns, absolutely no night differentiation in movement or combat like the air war.

I also don't like how combat is handled, incredibly lame to limit attacks to all units having to have the same attack orders for each attack, can't have some units attacking and not advancing while other units attack with advance orders. It also means that if we want to designate an attack for units to advance we have to not attack with some units in some hexes so the hex isn't left empty by ambitious advances.

Lastly I don't like the way the replay is handled, the play button should give us a smooth step-by-step replay, not jump right to the end as that's what a fast forward button should do. I liked Frank Hunter's WEGO games far better, the replay was awesome compared to the pathetic replay of DW.

So if the next game is going to be smaller and shorter then I'm definitely not wasting any further money or time on this rather boring WEGO system. I would rather see a larger unit scale, battalions as the smallest unit with daily turns and perhaps 5 to 6 miles per hex. I would rather see big battles being modeled like Battle of the Bulge rather than only playing portions of big battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
the replay was awesome compared to the pathetic replay of DW

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Do think the "boring" was a bit harsh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
the replay was awesome compared to the pathetic replay of DW

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Do think the "boring" was a bit harsh.

Ditto for "pathetic". Omnius raises some valid points, but as Wodin points out, others (such as myself) prefer the smaller scale (actually my preference would be a system which could accommodate units ranging in size from platoons to battalions, although I realize there are issues there...). You can't please everyone!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

Could we include COOP options for multiple commands?

quote:

ORIGINAL: laska2k8

Reassign units to different HQ