Road to Moscow game (never released)

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: daft
I think my "perfect" war game would be a real-time game where you could essentially start as a company commander and work you way up from there. Being a small cog in a massive machinery controlled by the AI. And if you start or work your wayup all the way to the top, AI is there support your ideas and execute your plans, leaving you to focus on the battle plan.

Crusader Kings II is just that: start as a Count involved in petty regional squabbles, become an Emperor down the line (your lineage) focusing on whole continents - while your subjects squabble about a handkerchief of land. You can even save the game, reload it and start again at the bottom by choosing one of your subjects - or e en someone else’s.

Of course CKII is set in the Middle Ages, but the framework is there: you do occupy a position and the AI manages every other character above and below you.

Re: Road to Moscow, I agree that it was too ambitious for the times. But Command Ops applied the same principles on a tactical level already back in the early 2000s. Maybe now it could be done - starting today with a 2020-21 publishing aim.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: daft
I think my "perfect" war game would be a real-time game where you could essentially start as a company commander and work you way up from there. Being a small cog in a massive machinery controlled by the AI. And if you start or work your wayup all the way to the top, AI is there support your ideas and execute your plans, leaving you to focus on the battle plan.

Crusader Kings II is just that: start as a Count involved in petty regional squabbles, become an Emperor down the line (your lineage) focusing on whole continents - while your subjects squabble about a handkerchief of land. You can even save the game, reload it and start again at the bottom by choosing one of your subjects - or e en someone else’s.

Of course CKII is set in the Middle Ages, but the framework is there: you do occupy a position and the AI manages every other character above and below you.

Re: Road to Moscow, I agree that it was too ambitious for the times. But Command Ops applied the same principles on a tactical level already back in the early 2000s. Maybe now it could be done - starting today with a 2020-21 publishing aim.

Yeah, CKII is pretty awesome. I would however like a military focused game (in the vein of War in the East/West) though. IMO, the games we have today are way to heavy on the simulation of the details and require you as a player to take on many different roles at once. Combat Mission for example requires you to be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander all the way up to battalion commander all at once. What captured my imagination with RtM was that you could focus on the bigger picture. Essentially drawing the arrows on the map and having your subordinates sort out the details. Imagine having a campaign built on such a system where you actually work your way up from company commander to whatever heights you aspire to with the mechanics staying the same but the scale adapts to whatever level you are at.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: daft
Imagine having a campaign built on such a system where you actually work your way up from company commander to whatever heights you aspire to with the mechanics staying the same but the scale adapts to whatever level you are at.

That's why I mentioned Crusader Kings: between CK II and Command Ops 2 we know that the technology to do a game like the one you describe (or a straight new attempt to code Road to Moscow restarting from scratch) does exists. For some reason, however, no one is doing something similar. Not that we know, at least.

[hellfish6]

Yeah, RtM is the operational land combat wargame I always wanted and never got. CMANO scratches the itch for me with air and sea stuff now, but nobody's come close to what RtM promised.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I would love to play that game, it looks very promising from the few screenshots linked here. Hard to believe it was a game from pre 2000.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Does someone know more about the planned Features/mechanics of the game?

[Capitaine]

You know, a "detailed" real time game of the War in Russia would've been a disaster. Imagine GGWitE running real time. Delightful eh? I was never enthused for this game. It'd have been 20x worse than Hearts of Iron is/was.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Hi capitaine, was it suppose to be real time?

I do not agree that a complex real time operational game has to be bad.
Porting WitE to a real time based engine of course makes no sense, the mechanics of a game with week long turns obviously cause difficulties in a real time game.

Having time pressure would not be to my liking, but you can always use the pause function.
+ if mechanics are right you can turn a real time game into a WEGO turn based game when playing human opponents (I usually do not play vs. AIs other then for learning the GUI/absolute basics), simply pause the turn in pre set time intevalls, both sides give new orders, then the time interval is resolved by one of the players without changing the anything, then repeat the process.
I would love to try out such a game.

Or a true turn based WEGO game where the resolution of the orders is done in hundreds of short intevalls.

Does someone still remember what outlook has been given on the game mechanics at that time?

[MrsWargamer]

Making a real-time game a game that enforces a person to constantly pause it in order to accomplish anything, is WHY we make games turn based.

If the game can't be any fun in real time without a pause button, then figure out the obvious, real-time isn't worth it, to begin with for that game.

I'd rather ALL games made to run on a machine were WEGO. Eliminates the gamey nicely. Doesn't enforce a frantic mouseclicky environment and there's no need for a pause button.

Real time in a wargame is about as useful as 3d. Adds nothing to the experience.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Making a real-time game a game that enforces a person to constantly pause it in order to accomplish anything, is WHY we make games turn based.

No one ever mentions how TOAW tried to simulate real time while remaining turn based: if one or more attacks first needed for some units to reach the front from afar, the remaining units had to "wait" both for the strategic movement and for the battle to end (1/10s of the turn being consumed in the process) before acting. The rule is still there, but I never really liked the added layer of complexity (forget or be not aware that one small battle between cavalry battalions will require most of the turn, and THE WHOLE EASTERN FRONT WILL END UP PARALYSED). Even with TOAW IV and all its improvements sometimes I would like the option to just play a classic turn based version of the scenario.

Real time in a wargame is about as useful as 3d. Adds nothing to the experience.

Dunno... I still play the original three Combat Mission games, and, even with early-2000s graphics, following the WEGO resolution in 3D is pretty cool [:)]

I agree, however, that Combat Mission sunk when too much attention was given to the 3D graphics, and instead of "Normandy to Berlin" we started getting "From Utah Beach East to Just Inland" [8|]

[EwaldvonKleist]

@MrsWargamer: I do not see a principal reason why real time strategy game can't be converted to a WEGO turn based system easily, if designed for that from the beginning. You may ask where the advantage lies. I see two points, first, some people are quick in mind, some slow, some meticulously, some play their turns quick. People like me who are slow and meticulously for most areas can't follow a real time game while keeping a satisfactory quality (meaning playing good) at the same time.
Second, in multiplayer both sides need to be online at the same time for real time games, but not for WEGO games.

A real time game that can also be played as WEGO may be unconventional, but I believe it can work.

Agree about graphics, my order of importance is Game mechanics (plausible, consistent and without too many exceptions, not exploitable) > well thought out GUI (less clickwork, good information presentation) and game stability > historical OOBs > graphics and historical eye candy like unit insignias

[Capitaine]

My observation/philosophy: The entire point of wargames was and is to create order out of chaos. While real war is highly unpredictable and chaotic, a wargame allows players to understand the principles involved in all phases of warfare and to control them intelligently. Wargames were never intended to "recreate real war". And those trying to replicate that effect in wargames are doomed to fail.

[daft]

Well then, that settles it. Glad we never had du endure anything even remotely similar to RtM then. [:D] I'll take my dream game somewhere else. [:'(]

[wodin]

Me too

ORIGINAL: daft

Raising the dead here. I still think of RtM from time to time. Or rather what it could have been, and I feel that hasn't really been done yet. Maybe Command Ops comes closest but ton a whole different scale. I do like the idea of managing the broad strokes and having you subordinates set up much of the rest. And with todays tech you could fill most of any "decision void" adding in political aspects much in the same way as Decisive Campaigns. I feel that both tactical and strategic games today tend to become a bit too fiddly and details focused for my tastes (I'm getting old!). Road to Moscow at least looked like it could fill a void even today. I think my "perfect" war game would be a real-time game where you could essentially start as a company commander and work you way up from there. Being a small cog in a massive machinery controlled by the AI. And if you start or work your wayup all the way to the top, AI is there support your ideas and execute your plans, leaving you to focus on the battle plan.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Me too

ORIGINAL: daft

Raising the dead here. I still think of RtM from time to time. Or rather what it could have been, and I feel that hasn't really been done yet. Maybe Command Ops comes closest but ton a whole different scale. I do like the idea of managing the broad strokes and having you subordinates set up much of the rest. And with todays tech you could fill most of any "decision void" adding in political aspects much in the same way as Decisive Campaigns. I feel that both tactical and strategic games today tend to become a bit too fiddly and details focused for my tastes (I'm getting old!). Road to Moscow at least looked like it could fill a void even today. I think my "perfect" war game would be a real-time game where you could essentially start as a company commander and work you way up from there. Being a small cog in a massive machinery controlled by the AI. And if you start or work your wayup all the way to the top, AI is there support your ideas and execute your plans, leaving you to focus on the battle plan.

Can you please explain to me the value in having an AI subordinate play a game for you? This is the problem with all real time games: They're either unplayable because you're constantly too overwhelmed to manage the game properly; you have to pause the game to issue "orders"; or you have to assign management to some AI subordinate. Why not just make a turn-based game then? Then you can do the supposedly enjoyable management yourself without all the hassles?

I just don't get the connection to what would be enjoyable in such exercises.

[wodin]

Tough question:)

I suppose I want to give the orders but just like real life how those orders turn out will depend on the commanders and officers of the units sent into battle.

This is a feature I'd like no matter the mechanic for turns (WEGO preferred, then turn based as for real time only the first few Close Combat games and Graviteam series can I deal with in realtime).

[Capitaine]

I guess that's it. But I find the player agency in actually moving the units to be the essence of wargaming. Your scenario appears to be more of a "command simulator" which, while not an absurd pursuit, nevertheless has never been something I've been interested in experiencing. If it were a military officer training exercise I guess it would have more purpose. But wargames have always been about moving your own units the way you see fit (YOU recreate history by assuming total command -- within certain realistic constraints).

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I suppose I want to give the orders but just like real life how those orders turn out will depend on the commanders and officers of the units sent into battle.

I can think of couple games that match that:
Combat Mission series
Rules of Engagement (at least the original)

[daft]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I guess that's it. But I find the player agency in actually moving the units to be the essence of wargaming. Your scenario appears to be more of a "command simulator" which, while not an absurd pursuit, nevertheless has never been something I've been interested in experiencing. If it were a military officer training exercise I guess it would have more purpose. But wargames have always been about moving your own units the way you see fit (YOU recreate history by assuming total command -- within certain realistic constraints).

Is the act of moving your units really the essence of wargaming? Player agency comes in many forms and can be surrounded by different sorts of constraints that can be both historical and ahistorical. This is obviously highly subjective, and I suppose that is why we differ in what we see as the essence of wargaming.

Yes, in many ways it would be a command simulator with the ability to intervene perhaps, for those that like that sort of control. It would certainly be different from the War in the Wests as you possibly wouldn't have extreme control of the totality of your sides logistical machine. Yet player agency exists much in the same way as it would in real life, or quite possibly expanded beyond that depending on how it would fit in from a game perspective. Influencing people up the chain of command in various ways, connections, what have you. So yes, in many ways more of a simulator than "wargame" in that sense.

Also, none of this threatens the existence of the types of games we already have. Not everything has to conform to the standards, all of the time. I see much of the same in subsims of yesteryear. Always a focus on the MACHINE rather than the experience of being in command of a submarine. There's a difference in fidelity, and both are valid and worthwile designs in my opinion.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: wodin

I suppose I want to give the orders but just like real life how those orders turn out will depend on the commanders and officers of the units sent into battle.

I can think of couple games that match that:
Combat Mission series
Rules of Engagement (at least the original)

Hmmm... Not sure I agree on Combat Mission. It's very hands on in the sense that even as a battalion CO you need to get down to the squad level to conduct proper attacks for example. Yes, the AI reacts to events and experience and skill is a parameter, but you can't really feed the system a set of parameters and see it execute a co-ordinated attack with scouts etc. But I get your point.