The "management" side is really special - plans for more?

[dhhd]

I love how it models the constraints of being part of a deeply flawed system, on either side. Reading enough history, for instance, is enough to smash the idea that Nazi Germany was a model of stereotypically German efficiency - it's great to see a game that shows what a shambles the German leadership could be, while still showing how effective the German military could be when things went right (or even when they were kind of going wrong). Likewise, the unresponsive nature of the Soviet military means that Soviet units don't have to be nerfed stat-wise to compensate for the Red Army's numbers.

As I understand it, the management side of things is greatly expanded from the previous two games in the series. Any plans to expand this to other theatres of war (I'm imagining conflicts between the British and Americans about the best way to do things in Italy or NW Europe, for instance, with the threat always in the background that any major reverse could cause serious political problems at home) or other time periods (I remember playing the Total War games when I was younger, and the road to victory always being an ahistorical investment in infrastructure, a mercantile economy, and a professional army mostly of well-trained commoners - none of which would have flown with a landed warrior nobility).

I barely play games any more - I mostly don't have the time - but this game makes the time expenditure worth it, and I don't think that would be the case without the management element.

[FeurerKrieg]

+1

I mentioned elsewhere I think they could do some interesting things with the post-war Middle East. So many different agendas to deal with there!

[RandomAttack]

I love some of the "snotty" memos from nominal subordinates. I've wanted to take a trip to AGN for awhile just to smack Leeb up 'side his sarcastic head... [:@][:D][&:]

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I love some of the "snotty" memos from nominal subordinates. I've wanted to take a trip to AGN for awhile just to smack Leeb up 'side his sarcastic head... [:@][:D][&:]

+1

[Tweedledumb]

+1 re: management side of the game

I think they're exploring the idea of a France 1944 invasion scenario where as the Allies you get to choose where/when to invade and as the Germans how to deploy/respond defensively.

Makes sense to me, as the supply system from DC3 would work well to model the Allied issues and, of course, there are lots of "management" issues, particularly on the Allied side with Monty/Patton and a host of logistics decisions.

[Gunnulf]

North west europe certainly makes sense with plenty of power struggles going on, in the air and on the ground. There might even be potential for a 3 player PBEM system between the US, Commonwealth & Germany.

[lancer]

Hi,

Whatever the next game is the people management aspect will be front and centre.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Gunnulf]

DC4: Human Resources. Can you downsize the legal dept while growing sales? Who do you allocate the spare parking space to? Will you ignore EU working directive 1271b? Does Dave deserve a bonus this year despite dancing naked at the christmas party?

Epic.

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Whatever the next game is the people management aspect will be front and centre.

Cheers,
Cameron

Cool !!

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

DC4: Human Resources. Can you downsize the legal dept while growing sales? Who do you allocate the spare parking space to? Will you ignore EU working directive 1271b? Does Dave deserve a bonus this year despite dancing naked at the christmas party?

Epic.

Sounds a little like my day job.

[dhhd]

ORIGINAL: Tweedledumb

+1 re: management side of the game

I think they're exploring the idea of a France 1944 invasion scenario where as the Allies you get to choose where/when to invade and as the Germans how to deploy/respond defensively.

Makes sense to me, as the supply system from DC3 would work well to model the Allied issues and, of course, there are lots of "management" issues, particularly on the Allied side with Monty/Patton and a host of logistics decisions.

That would be really cool - something simulating the second half of 1944, perhaps up until winter. From pre-invasion decisions (balancing hitting German logistics vs avoiding collateral damage, for instance) to priorities later on (support Market Garden, or try to focus resources on clearing the Scheldt earlier?).

[JagdFlanker]

ORIGINAL: Tweedledumb

+1 re: management side of the game

I think they're exploring the idea of a France 1944 invasion scenario where as the Allies you get to choose where/when to invade and as the Germans how to deploy/respond defensively.

Makes sense to me, as the supply system from DC3 would work well to model the Allied issues and, of course, there are lots of "management" issues, particularly on the Allied side with Monty/Patton and a host of logistics decisions.

i think the D-Day thing may have been a hypothetical scenario that was created to facilitate contrasting questions in VR's survey

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=1313

[Moltke71]

This idea is probably nut feasible but could DC2 be retrofitted to include human management, decisions, etc?

[Tweedledumb]

Yes, Flanker, that's where I got the "hint".

As Cameron has said, they have lots of possible directions to take the DC3 system.

For me, a France 1944 scenario is a very attractive choice.

[JWW]

I think it would be very interesting to do a game of this type where you could take on the role of an army group commander with not only superiors and subordinates but other army group commanders controlled by the AI. You would have to argue for your share of support, operate within your boundaries, or not, and succeed or fail based on the mission objectives given by your boss. And you might lose the game suddenly at any point by being relieved for failure to accomplish your mission. I know this would be more complex as far as programming, because you might encounter something like an order to immediately advance on Moscow as commander of AGC while AGS has lagged behind and your southern flank is completely exposed. Or you might be sitting at Smolensk with an open door to Moscow and be told to defend in place. What do you do? Ignore the orders? Reconnaissance in force? Etc. Or take on the role of Bradley or Montgomery in the West. Etc. It would be obviously much more complex to design but would be really fascinating to play.

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: JW

I think it would be very interesting to do a game of this type where you could take on the role of an army group commander with not only superiors and subordinates but other army group commanders controlled by the AI. You would have to argue for your share of support, operate within your boundaries, or not, and succeed or fail based on the mission objectives given by your boss. And you might lose the game suddenly at any point by being relieved for failure to accomplish your mission. I know this would be more complex as far as programming, because you might encounter something like an order to immediately advance on Moscow as commander of AGC while AGS has lagged behind and your southern flank is completely exposed. Or you might be sitting at Smolensk with an open door to Moscow and be told to defend in place. What do you do? Ignore the orders? Reconnaissance in force? Etc. Or take on the role of Bradley or Montgomery in the West. Etc. It would be obviously much more complex to design but would be really fascinating to play.

That's a great idea. I'd love to play coop with AI as a Group commander. This would be a great option.

[Amicofritz]

Expanding this great game beyond 1942 and letting us play it out till the bitter end in 1945 would be my No. 1 priority.

[Philippeatbay]

The reason the management side of this game works so well is because of the scope and extent of the writing. If you lower the density of the text messages and reports too much the immersion will start to wear thin and peter out.

Extending the game to the end of the war means making it seven times longer. That's a lot of writing and would take years to create, more years to test, and ten years later you would still be finding bugs.

I think it would be much better to focus on the range of events and incidents that would occur in a six month slice of time. If Cameron had to sit around writing War and Peace, he'd be old and grey before the game ever saw the light of day.

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: Amicofritz

Expanding this great game beyond 1942 and letting us play it out till the bitter end in 1945 would be my No. 1 priority.

+1

So many things could make this great game the ultimate legendary game (even if it's already the case IMHO)

[dhhd]

ORIGINAL: JW

I think it would be very interesting to do a game of this type where you could take on the role of an army group commander with not only superiors and subordinates but other army group commanders controlled by the AI. You would have to argue for your share of support, operate within your boundaries, or not, and succeed or fail based on the mission objectives given by your boss. And you might lose the game suddenly at any point by being relieved for failure to accomplish your mission. I know this would be more complex as far as programming, because you might encounter something like an order to immediately advance on Moscow as commander of AGC while AGS has lagged behind and your southern flank is completely exposed. Or you might be sitting at Smolensk with an open door to Moscow and be told to defend in place. What do you do? Ignore the orders? Reconnaissance in force? Etc. Or take on the role of Bradley or Montgomery in the West. Etc. It would be obviously much more complex to design but would be really fascinating to play.

That would be very interesting. Arguing over resources, having to strike a balance between your force doing the important stuff (have to get those promotions and glory in the history books, after all) and your force getting ground down by doing too much important stuff, etc. Pretending you didn't get orders ("what's that, sir? I'm sorry, you're breaking up. You want us to pull back? I can't hear you, there's lots of static. Confirm, we are pulling back" [make static noise for a minute, hang up]). Being able to harangue staff officers into getting what you want in the short term, but they dislike you afterwards and you only have so much goodwill to burn. Having a heart attack because you're a general in his 50s or 60s who's been working 20-hour days and living on cigarettes (more than one German general had a heart attack during the war, and one or two died).