If I were developing a WW1 wargame

[Fred98]

If I were developing a WW1 wargame (and I am not) this is how I would design it.

I prefer turn based because I like to PBEM

WE-GO is better the U-GO I-GO

The left edge of the map would be about 20 k west of Paris. It doesn’t need to go any further west because if the Central Powers capture Paris they win and the game ends.

The top edge would run across just above Denmark.

The east edge would be just east of the historic battlefields because if the Central Powers break through the game ends and they win.

The southern edge would be just south of the Dardenells in Turkey.

I prefer the modern game-style in the form of provinces over hexes but I will use the word “hexes” to get my point across.

The number of hexes from Switzerland to the Channel needs to be a large number to allow for manoeuvre and small advances. Fifty hexes would be a good number. Any fewer hexes and the game is already a stalemate.

The rest of the map is then proportioned around that.

In many games the hexes are about 1cm across on my monitor. I want the hexes to be very small to reduce the amount of paging around the map.

For example the map should be no more than 2 monitors wide and 3 monitors high.

As for the counters, traditional wargaming counters remain the best.

Perhaps each counter could be brigade/regimental strength.

It seems to me that the early part of the war involved much manoeuvre but the 3 years in the middle involved only small advances.

So a major feature of the game would be logistics. You need to build up for an offensive without letting the opponent knowing you are doing so. Aerial recon plays a part.

Each side has points. You can spend pouints on troops or what ever. The allied player can also send points to Russia to stop the Russian collapse. it means the allied player has fewer points to spend on troops and weakens the western front. A difficult choice.


-

[wodin]

I'd buy....mine is a turn based WW1 plane sim with RPG elements.

[jomni]

Ultrarealistic FPS.  Let's see how long you survive. What ever happened to "To End All Wars"?

[pelle75]

All great ideas! Make that ultrarealistic FPS also support trench-raids and patrols and it might work as a game as well, but simulating a stereotypical ww1 assault in detail might be interesting in sort of the same way as this solitaire board game is:

POOR BLOODY INFANTRY is a tactical World War I "experience" game simulating a single platoon (featuring counters representing individual men) going over the top at the Somme on July 1, 1916.

(http://minden_games.homestead.com/PanzerDigest8.html)

[carnifex]

If I were developing a WW1 game it would be a card game and you could play it in under an hour.

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

If I were developing a WW1 game it would be a card game and you could play it in under an hour.

Something like that?

[Capt. Harlock]

The left edge of the map would be about 20 k west of Paris. It doesn’t need to go any further west because if the Central Powers capture Paris they win and the game ends.

The top edge would run across just above Denmark.

The east edge would be just east of the historic battlefields because if the Central Powers break through the game ends and they win.

The southern edge would be just south of the Dardenells in Turkey.

But what about the fighting in the Middle East? That was a major part of the collapse of Turkey (which was actually the Ottoman Empire at the time).

And then there's the war at sea. The Admiral of the British Grand Fleet was accurately described as "the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon". Granted, he didn't -- but the danger needs to be there. Likewise, the U-boat threat to Britain's economy cannot be left out if you want a realistic game.

I suppose you can ignore the Zeppelin raids on London -- but something should represent aerial recon.

[Fred98]

The oceans are too large to be represented on the map. The se war would be fought in a separate "box".

I agree ther war in the Middle East should be included.

-