Desert War: Eastern Front '42

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: MrClock

A database of units and a summary of their history.

An interesting idea. This would go far to support a "linked-scenario campaign".

We'll see.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: MrClock
A database of units and a summary of their history.

+1000, plus mega bonus points if exportable/importable.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: MrClock
A database of units and a summary of their history.

+1000, plus mega bonus points if exportable/importable.

Hmmm...now I'm not sure what I'm signing up for with this hearty-ho. When I hear "database of units", I think, "these are the units of 1st Guards Army during period x..." or similar TO&E exploration. A "summary of their history"...actually means a summary of their historical combat record. What I envision for a connected set of scenarios only includes an historical summary of the targeted set of units in the game. More than that is way outside the scope of the next game.

[jack54]

I'd love to see the ability to target i.e. pursue/follow an enemy unit. The Ageod wego system has this feature; I find I use it often.

The below image shows a surrounded Enemy HQ that got away.[;)] I thought I had it covered[8|] (Dropbox link to a gif that shows the escape https://www.dropbox.com/s/c4garwunrzc5a ... e.gif?dl=0)

[Saint Ruth]

That's an interesting idea.
Some units (recce) retreat from enemy units so this would be the opposite.
How do you tell a unit to pursue in Ageod? Right click the unit or ... ?

[jack54]

With Ageod you drag and drop the attacking unit onto the target enemy. Since their games use 'areas' there is plenty of room to target the enemy or drop in the region without targeting an individual enemy. I would imagine Desert War would need a corresponding 'Key' press since the units are concentrated in stacks.

[BletchleyGeek]

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.

[Phoenix100]

+1

[governato]

Can't wait for this! To state the obvious: make sure you add solid weather rules...


It's my impression that It's not always sunny and dry in Russia....

[Saint Ruth]

Yep, pack your gloves! There will be snow! [8D]

[superhans]

Line of sight (LOS) like CommandOps2. Campaign operational map phase with battles based on setup like Graviteam tactics. Granular GUI metrics and commanders report like WitW. Combine em all!

Loving the game so far..especially the direct dev feedback. I'm happy the way it is TBH.

Keep up the good work!

[76mm]

Everything sounds good; one further request--please don't artificially limit the size of scenarios which can be created in the editor, in case players would like to create something bigger than two corps...

[bcgames]

Agreed.

The Desert War Editor/game files are totally open to modders...maps, OBs, graphics, etc. The only limiter that I can think of is the types of terrain available (desert/arid stuff). The Eastern Front game has the same limits--the terrain available (expanded to those types found in the former USSR south of Leningrad). Now you could squeeze out a Western Front scenario using the next game editor I suppose...but I would want a few more terrain types added to the editor before "jumping in" with both feet. Unit scale-wise, you are not (and haven't been) limited; you could use armies as the basic unit with year-long turns if that's what you want to do.

Bottomline--the editor will continue to expand the design freedoms available to the scenario designer. More is goal--not less.

[mannerheim4]

Clearly, too many pieces. An Eastern Front game would be worse.

I would suggest removing the many separate AT sections and other such units and add "them" to the divisional HQ to dole out as needed. The receiving unit would have a bump up in combat strength, perhaps a small AT capability, etc. that can be added to the individual infantry battalion. You could do the same with Artillery. They could be either added to an individual battalion as support (say, a 25 pounder used as AT) or the artillery added to the infantry division and provide simple support points per combat.

Even engineers could be "eliminated" and made into a support capability that is doled out to the maneuver unit.

This would get rid of A LOT of clicking.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

Clearly, too many pieces. An Eastern Front game would be worse.

I would suggest removing the many separate AT sections and other such units and add "them" to the divisional HQ to dole out as needed. The receiving unit would have a bump up in combat strength, perhaps a small AT capability, etc. that can be added to the individual infantry battalion. You could do the same with Artillery. They could be either added to an individual battalion as support (say, a 25 pounder used as AT) or the artillery added to the infantry division and provide simple support points per combat.

Even engineers could be "eliminated" and made into a support capability that is doled out to the maneuver unit.

This would get rid of A LOT of clicking.

I so agree! (as the devs know ). I just want to point out that there is a thread dedicated to ideas on how to reduce the number of support units ..

tm.asp?m=4600499

IF I remember a coding objection to the idea of adding support units (AT, MGs, short range AA and artillery , eng, and maybe tank platoons) 'on the fly' was that the addition would give temporary capabilities to larger units, increasing code complexity...BUT isn't that what is a happening already for each stack?

[mannerheim4]

Governato,

I'll answer you here, but I'll go look at the link you suggested later!

If coding is an issue, as you mention, what about doing something that is done already prior to combat where you establish artillery/air/recon support. You could add AT support, engineer support, etc., and get rid of those units that are unnecessary to have their own distinct unit. Rarely would such a unit act alone, anyway. I would prefer to have my individual battalions for an infantry division with divisional level support that I could add, either "permanently" or every turn. A lot fewer units to worry about. And more realistic, as the division would attach to the battalion, rather than putting them on the line in their own foxholes.

Take care,

Joe

[mannerheim4]

Another thing to consider:

Command control. Most games have a radius from the HQ as the heart of their command rules. Being outside of command has particular negatives per game. But the player still maintains control.

I would like to see an optional rule (since some players don't like the idea of not having control) where the computer does not allow the player to use his units as he expected. A variety of modifiers could be used to adjust that check. The model I am thinking of is from the Battalion Combat System (BCS) from MMP - a board game. It is called a "SNAFU" roll You roll per HQ to see whether the units of the HQ can move normally, half or zero. Since it is randomly determined, it does add in some interesting situations that are more realistic. For example, planning a concentric attack and then one of your HQ fails its roll and cannot move up to support the combat that you had planned - resulting in a partial, ineffective attack, MUCH more realistic in keeping with operational command. In the game, the WEGO is nice, but it would be interesting to see (as in real life) if a unit doesn't react to your orders whatsoever.

It would be much more difficult to code a "failure" to have the unit do something "random", like move 3 hexes west, so I think an "I didn't get your orders, so I'm staying here" would be sufficient to show loss of command. Naturally, in a Soviet-German game, this would be more pronounced and would better show the command differences. Keeping your units in a small command radius, to me, doesn't do the trick in showing command differences between German and Russian. Unexpectedly losing half of your attack forces on a German armor regiment because of faulty command/control is much more realistic - and frustrating for the Russians!

Thoughts?

Joe

[Saint Ruth]

Hi, well there is a Command And Control penalty. Units may be delayed before they move (so they might not even move). This depends on the side's CCV (Commmand Control Value).
Units won't however go off on their own for example.

Also by the by, some units have restrictions. For example, if you try to move a Recce unit beside an enemy non-recce unit, it'll refuse (you must order it to Move And Attack to move adjacent to an enemy unit).

As you say, what you suggest would have to be optional, to some, nothing would be more annoying than units going off and doing their own thing! [8D]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth
Hi, well there is a Command And Control penalty. Units may be delayed before they move (so they might not even move). This depends on the side's CCV (Commmand Control Value).
Units won't however go off on their own for example.

I think that this kind of delay is fully adequate, I would really not want to see units going off to do some random thing. Maybe some things like a unit ignoring firing range or sector assignments would be OK, especially for less-well-trained troops.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
...I would like to see an optional rule (since some players don't like the idea of not having control) where the computer does not allow the player to use his units as he expected. A variety of modifiers could be used to adjust that check. The model I am thinking of is from the Battalion Combat System (BCS) from MMP - a board game. It is called a "SNAFU" roll You roll per HQ to see whether the units of the HQ can move normally, half or zero. Since it is randomly determined, it does add in some interesting situations that are more realistic. For example, planning a concentric attack and then one of your HQ fails its roll and cannot move up to support the combat that you had planned - resulting in a partial, ineffective attack, MUCH more realistic in keeping with operational command. In the game, the WEGO is nice, but it would be interesting to see (as in real life) if a unit doesn't react to your orders whatsoever...

...Thoughts?

I just recently concluded two BCS game-plays (Brazen Chariots [Battleaxe] & Last Blitzkrieg [The Goose Egg] via VASSAL) with two Desert War 1940-42 playtesters & BCS fans. Conclusion? They still like BCS but also agree--BCS isn't the same as the Desert War game experience--which they thought was more enjoyable. Desert War knows all the rules--and enforces them all by itself. BCS? This rule cross-referenced with this rule on page five de-conflicted with the errata found here, equals--ENJOYMENT! Legally speaking.

As Saint Ruth has pointed out, the Command and Control Value in Desert War does a good job of replicating the effects of the "SNAFU" roll in BCS...but dialed back a notch or two. Adding a notch or two more of randomness is OK by me--just give the player the option to select their cup of SNAFU tea.