The Political Question?

[Capt Cliff]

Ok we have the military situation sketched out, except for the free production rebels. But what about the two nut cases in charge of Germany and the Soviet Union? Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders? [&:]

The one that stands out is forcing the capture of Kiev by Hitler instead of marching on to Moscow. It might be nice to have the politco's give objectives that must be taken or dire consequences happen, like all your corp commanders are executed or loss of victory points until you do what Stalin tells you. It doesn't have to be historical like the capture of Kiev but simplely meddling by the two looney toons, Adolph and Joe. I think Stalin after a while turned things over to his commanders but I am not really sure.

This politico interference was something the generals had to deal with along with supply, armor and air superiority and manpower shortages. To not have it in a historical game really makes it un-historical or a fantasy what if ... what if Hitler wasn't such a dork!![:'(]

[AZKGungHo]

IF that was going to be done, and I doubt it, it would have to be as an optional feature.  Because these kind of restrictions end up ruining the game as a game, and usually end up ruining it as history as well.  I mean, if we're going to do this, how about historical weather, etc.?

At some point you have to just let the players play if you know what I mean?

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: AZ Gung Ho

IF that was going to be done, and I doubt it, it would have to be as an optional feature.  Because these kind of restrictions end up ruining the game as a game, and usually end up ruining it as history as well.  I mean, if we're going to do this, how about historical weather, etc.?

At some point you have to just let the players play if you know what I mean?

Then the game is non-historical without interference from the two supreme leaders in some capacity! Would be like not having any weather at all or unlimited supply!! WIR had something if I am not mistaken, use to see messages about Stalin retiring or something to that affect. No production is one thing but an incomplete military command structure is another. It's a fanatasy game then of what if there was no Hitler or Stalin, I am free to do what I want!! [:-]

[AZKGungHo]

Aren't almost all wargames "fantasy" in that respect?  That's long been a selling point, "You take command! If you were in command instead of [insert name here] could you win?"

If you make these games completely historical then they cease being games and simply become replays of history.  I mean, since Germany had absolutely no chance at all of winning against the US, Russia and England, why even play it out?

Some things have to be fudged to make things gameable!

[Capitaine]

I think wargamers too often look at a simulation as "placing them in command" as a given historical figure or position. They believe that in playing a wargame they need to be given ONLY what their general would have had, would have known, etc. That isn't how wargames are played, however. The player of a wargame plays as a hive mind of all commanders at all levels. Sometimes there are command rules which impose command limitations on units (radii, movement limits, supply limits), but every decision in the game is made by the player knowing he will be able to move x, y and z other units in a sequence he decides. The point of a wargame is what would happen if the player were in charge of everything the game gives him the opportunity to play. It has nothing to do with "what hat he is wearing".

Commercial wargames have never been about military training of officers; they're about having fun. Limiting a player to only the information or control that a von Manstein or Zhukov had would not, in my opinion, be as enjoyable as playing the game with all of the moves being those you dictated. In other words, I hope no one thinks that playing a wargame, even one as complex as WITP-AE, would make them a great general or admiral.

[Duck Doc]

In Uncle Joe's case does a small caliber bullet to the back of the head cause much of a headache?

Good idea for a game with a grand strategic scale but not for this one. I would love to see a game with a free set up for both sides. Now that would result in some interesting games.

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders?

[Joel Billings]

We do have automatic firing of leaders. I'm pretty sure Soviet leaders can be executed. This is based on leader wins versus losses and possibly political rating. Not sure if we'll have time or the inclination to add any other rules for High Command interference as game options.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Dale H

In Uncle Joe's case does a small caliber bullet to the back of the head cause much of a headache?

Good idea for a game with a grand strategic scale but not for this one. I would love to see a game with a free set up for both sides. Now that would result in some interesting games.

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Didn't their interference cause all sorts of head aches for the military commanders?

Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality. Nice that Sovviet general are removed, death is a finality, for lack of performance. I hope the German has that to. But it might be nice if a good general was given the axe too now and again because of some political problem. Like General Whozwitz's screwed up and insulted Adolph at a staff meeting and got sacked. They lost Gunderian that way. But mainly I was suggesting that certain military objectives be given by the Supreme leader that you had to take or you take a hit in victory points. Now you have an east front WWII game run by Napoleon. [:-]

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality.

Agreed. The War in Russia, abstracting out the Supreme Commanders' meddling, would have unfolded differently. Probably drastically differently. But we may be underestimating the tricky programming involved, I'm not sure the promiscuous re-weighting of objectives would do it. Entire front sectors may need to be evaluated on the fly. And there's only so much control the player may be willing to surrender. For the designers, it's a fine line.

[mmarquo]

Interference from higher ups should be abstractly built into the attack/defence/mvt factors and command radii and HQ effects. Consider that 100 T34s should always decimate 100 Pz111s but usually a designer builds tactical/operational inefficiency into the relative ratings such that the T34s get whipped - not because the Axis armor is better or guns better, but because of the command structure/constraints all the way up and down the line. [8D]

Marquo

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Your protraying a military commander inserted in the command structure below Uncle Joe and Adolph, this isn't a Napoleonic game so your not Napoleon. You got some duffus bummping your elbow and interfering with what your doing which was part of the job. But if this isn't happening then it's not a historical reality.

Agreed. The War in Russia, abstracting out the Supreme Commanders' meddling, would have unfolded differently. Probably drastically differently. But we may be underestimating the tricky programming involved, I'm not sure the promiscuous re-weighting of objectives would do it. Entire front sectors may need to be evaluated on the fly. And there's only so much control the player may be willing to surrender. For the designers, it's a fine line.

True it is a difficult task for the programer to reflect this interference from up echelon. Perhaps a loss of supply to say Army Group South due to needs in North Africa or Italy would mimic this interfernce. But the attack on Kiev forced by Hitler stands out as a prime example of Hitler screwing up. It thru off the time table for capturing Moscow. If Moscow falls so does the Soviet Union. It was the major railhead ... all roads lead to Moscow. I still like being assignment towns to be taken by higher command, within say 4 to 6 hex's from the existing front. No reward for taking it but to ignor it causes problems.

[Pford]

But the attack on Kiev forced by Hitler stands out as a prime example of Hitler screwing up. It thru off the time table for capturing Moscow.

Maybe. The Germans netted hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that encirclement. And they were unaware of the exceptional blizzard conditions that awaited the panzers. OTOH, what sensible player will waste so many divisions in a frontal assault on Stalingrad? The more you think about it, some kind of command constraint seems desirable. So, I'm on your side despite the programming challenges.

[Rasputitsa]

Any command restraints need to be optional, as the fun is in exploring different strategies. It will be a sterile game if we are forced to repeat the errors and stupidity of the past. [:)]

[Skanvak]

I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject.

1st/ Stalin does not have the same impact on the Stavka that Hitler had on the OKW (making it inexistent). According to a book I read on this war, the Stavka was really in charge and their generals were obedient. For the German it is quite the opposite, the OKW or H was non-existent. Decision where taken either by Hitler or by its generals, or by a round of argument between Hitlers and one of its generals.

2nd/ I do share that simulating the mind of Hitler or Stalin according to what the Player do is somewhat difficult. I think that a Multi-player for one side option can help player simulate the chain of command. One player will be player the political leader and GHQ, so not moving units per se, but it will give commands to other palyers playing the generals. So he can retire them or rewards them if they do well and obey (a motivting victory system between the generals must be designed here).

3rd/ If as all wargame we play the hive mind, I'd LOVE a free set-up. Look, setting up an army is accroding to an attack plan, if the set-up is historical, then you have to follow the historical attack plan. No what-if. If it is so, the we can factor all Hitler's/stalin intervention; historical weather (which is unrealistic by the way as it give an information no one had) and portray the special characters of all the Generals (Guderian was retired was disobedience, Paulus did not take action when ordered to, and Manstein general goes by its own plans. Have fun playing the Supreme Commander of those. The 2 Russain commander did not like each other so cooperate badly, I read once, need more information on this one).
So if you let the player have total control of all aspect of the game, it would be normal to have free set-up for Barbarossa (later scenario should have historical set-up only or limited free set-up).

That one of the failure of game like OAW that does not allow free set-up. I always feel prisonner of the historical approach / scenario designer choice for the plan. Does not mean that I don't like such game, just that sometime, i wish to try another approach and be surprised by my opponent approached.

[Pford]

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Pford

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

Yes something along those lines. For an anology how's this ... You have marriage with this game but no wife. No one to say "You playing that dam game again, you promised to take me to dinner!" So off to dinner you go and your big plans are put on hold. [:D]

Maybe once a month you get orders from HQ to do something dumb or maybe something you were already planning to do and now you get some supply to do it!!! Penalty for not complying would maybe lose of 10% supply, shipped to North Africa. Use it or lose it! There must be an a way to determine a target say not less than 3 hex's and not more that 6 and you have a month to capture it. Anyway the meddle some hen pecking by upper command is lacking, as I can see.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Yes something along those lines.

Easier said than done, I suspect. WBTS uses an area based movement system. For some reason this uber-command kind of manipulation you want seems more feasible in that format than with hexes and continuous fronts.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

ORIGINAL: Pford

Gary is not above simulating political factors in his games. The evidence: in War Between the States a Political Point penalty was assessed on the Union player if he DIDN'T move into Virginia on the first turn- July '63- and, IIRC, the US player got bonuses for maintaining a presence in that area on subsequent turns. This reflected political reality, the pressure on the Generals from Lincoln and the Northern press to go for the Southern jugular was overpowering in 1861. Without that incentive the Union player would, by preference, concentrate on the West in order to stretch the Southern line, arguably a sounder strategy.

Yes something along those lines. For an anology how's this ... You have marriage with this game but no wife. No one to say "You playing that dam game again, you promised to take me to dinner!" So off to dinner you go and your big plans are put on hold. [:D]

Maybe once a month you get orders from HQ to do something dumb or maybe something you were already planning to do and now you get some supply to do it!!! Penalty for not complying would maybe lose of 10% supply, shipped to North Africa. Use it or lose it! There must be an a way to determine a target say not less than 3 hex's and not more that 6 and you have a month to capture it. Anyway the meddle some hen pecking by upper command is lacking, as I can see.

The new EagleDay/Bombing The Reich has periods where the target types are mandatory, such as supporting the Italian & Normandy landings etc, shows that the game isnt played in a vacuum and that outside events do affect the game.

[ShaiHulud]

A simple method of inferring interference from above is allocation of supply to the various fronts. You want a big push in the South? Too bad! The Northern Army/Front got supply preference. No need to give ultimata to take a particular cities.

[CaptBeefheart]

I think a lot of us like playing God in these games. That said, there's no reason why certain political considerations can't enter play in the form of political points (as above), victory points, supply or reinforcement adjustments or whatever. Such factors can nudge players in certain directions but don't absolutely require them to follow a certain course of action.

In the Civil War example the player has a choice: establish a presence in Northern Virginia and receive said political points or go all out in the west and hope the lack of political points is balanced by success in that theater. It's fun gaming to test such hypotheses. The way I see the Kiev dilemma is this: You can go all out for Moscow, but if you fail all those troops you didn't pocket in Kiev (or some other place) will come back to bite you. It's a question of taking objectives vs. destruction of enemy forces. To me there doesn't have to be a special rule in that case--it's a natural conundrum for the player to solve himself.