North Africa Please

[Michael T]

Would love to see the North African Campaign given the DC3 treatment, the logistical model would make a fantastic game of it. I am yet to play a game that has adequately modeled the logistical problems faced by both sides in that conflict. I think the DC3 system would work so well with it.

[lparkh]

+1

[Flaviusx]

Like the idea but it might not work on a divisional scale.

[Michael T]

Yes scale would need to change. Regimental most likely. But the logistical system would/should really show why the campaign developed as it did. I am yet to see that in a playable wargame.

[gunnergoz]

Operational level North African campaign also including the Med naval combat & logistic side during 1940-42 would float my boat.

[Queeg]

Seconded.

[Hexagon]

And with the chance to made Italy select a better set of movements in early period... Malta assault, ignore Greece to buff North AFrica units with more trucks.

[Franciscus]

+1

(but please, not just a scenario starting December 1940 and ending December 1941 [:D])

[FluffyFoxy]

+1

Far too few PC games cover that theatre of war.

[IslandInland]

My favourite theatre so I would love to see a North African game with this engine.

[willgamer]

All of the above would float my boat, but I think my 1st choice would be the American Civil War.

This engine's innovative use of decisions using political points would really shine for that war.

Might need to be brigade level and could cover just 1 theater.

[Philippeatbay]

The first time I played Barbarossa and realized what the game system was modeling, I had a Rick Atkinson Army at Dawn flashback.

I'm not a huge fan of the Western Theater, but North Africa (or even Overlord) could give you the gaming experience of the Germans and Soviets in Barbarossa for both sides at the same time. Eisenhower was a Halder who had to be very good at herding cats, and Kesselring had to fight a holding action and deal with Hitler.

So the good part of that is that the game would be a very rich experience for both sides. But the bad part is that it would probably involve a lot more writing and take three years or so to develop.

[WarHunter]

Med Theater, Sure!
Korea or Vietnam would be interesting conflicts to model also.

Look forward to anything the designers would choose for their next project. [&o]

[lancer]

Hi,

North Africa is interesting as it's got a very heavy focus on the logistical side. Rommel really pushed his luck here.

On the other hand it's a predominately back and forth tussle along a thin coastal strip with limited scope for flanking.

To make it interesting you'd probably have to pull in a decent chunk of the Mediterranean.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Vic]

Personally I feel like Africa really shines at lower levels of moddeling. To me it almost feels more like a series of naval engagements. Well untill El Alamein where the realities of land warfare re-affirm themselves.

The problem with designing for it imho is that you have a big battle in a limited area for a few days to a week or so and then a retreat/advance of 100s of kilometers and then a stalemate for a month or more and then a repetition.

To put the scale so high that you encompass the whole theatre on a manageable map with a reasonable ammount of turns would do the main battles injustice. To make it at lower scale like a linked-scenario campaign would destroy the sense of theatre command.

Honestly I'd like to do it at one time. But there are severe design issues I haven't solved yet.

Best wishes,
Vic

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Personally I feel like Africa really shines at lower levels of moddeling. To me it almost feels more like a series of naval engagements. Well untill El Alamein where the realities of land warfare re-affirm themselves.

The problem with designing for it imho is that you have a big battle in a limited area for a few days to a week or so and then a retreat/advance of 100s of kilometers and then a stalemate for a month or more and then a repetition.

To put the scale so high that you encompass the whole theatre on a manageable map with a reasonable ammount of turns would do the main battles injustice. To make it at lower scale like a linked-scenario campaign would destroy the sense of theatre command.

Honestly I'd like to do it at one time. But there are severe design issues I haven't solved yet.

Best wishes,
Vic

warspite1

Well Vic, having seen what you have achieved here, if you ever did look to do something in the Mediterranean theatre (June 1940-September 1943) I would love to be involved. It is a dream of mine that one day, hopefully before I drop off this mortal coil, I will get to play a fun, colourful, but historically-sound game of the theatre that involves land, air and naval warfare. Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps/Italians, Regia Marina vs Royal Navy, the entrance of the U-boats, the Vichy French, Malta, the supply of North Africa, Greece, Crete, Torch.... heaven!

[Michael T]

@Vic, I hope you figure it out as it would be a fabulous gaming experience. I have read widely on this subject (NA) and I know that often a battle was decided by who could build up their supplies and launch the offensive first. That would be very tense. How much fuel do I need to kill 8th Army? When do I strike? How far should I go? Should I take Tobruk or bypass? Fascinating stuff. Cards for Malta ops etc, convoys, a more aggressive Italian RN. The list could go on and on.

[ChuckBerger]

I've spend quite a lot of idle time thinking through a theater-level Mediterranean game in the last little while.

The fascinating thing about this theater is that it's not a straightforward axis versus allies game. Italy and Germany had very different and divergent goals in the Mediterranean... and ditto the US and Brits. And then there's all the minors, each with their own goals and sensitivities - imagine Wavell's position, having to walk a delicate line with Greece, various Vichy and Free French commanders, Egyptian leaders, the Americans, his own troops (Aussies, South Africans, New Zealanders, Indians... each with demands and restrictions), plus relationships with the Navy, Spain and Turkey, coups in Iraq and Persia, etc etc. WHile managing a logistics tail that stretches from Egypt all the way around Africa back to the UK.

The US wanted to get its troops combat experience for the main show in France, while the UK (or at least Churchill) wanted the Med to be the main thrust against Italy & Germany. And at various time, to get bases to bomb Ploesti, to get a foothold in the Balkans before the Russians got there, etc. Very complex and shifting strategic goals for operations in the Med.

On the axis side, Italy wanted empire, Germany just wanted to tie down Allied troops and prevent the Italians from getting squashed. Or maybe grabbing Egpyt and pushing through to the oilfields? Or maybe not, after all. I can see a very interesting dynamic where you are strongly encouraged to pursue Italian ambitions in Greece, Tunisia, Egypt - wherever - and you lose PP if you fail to achieve them. But realistically, achieving those goals requires the commitment of German forces, which also costs a hefty amount of PP.

Imagine, Mussolini decides he wants Tunisia. But doing so will tip the Vichy over to the Allies again, and Italian troops bungle the operation anyway and Italy is soon at risk of losing Libya entirely. Germany has to rush troops over, UK sends troops in through Morocco to help French north africans, and the whole desert campaign takes place on 2 fronts, not just one. Plausible.

The permutations in terms of choices and the amount of branching the campaign could take are unparalleled. Germany gets Franco to intervene, takes Gibraltar, but French North Africa goes Allied because Franco's condition is that Spain gets Morocco and Algeria. As a result, US launches Torch in Andalucia in 1943... Plausible.

Or suppose Vichy goes Axis after Mers-el-Kebir, German rushes a mountain/airborne corps to the Levant, and Allies are faced with an invasion of Palestine from the north in 1940? With lots of running naval battles as Italians try to get convoys through to Beirut, covered by a Fliegerkorps at Crete/Rhodes? Plausible.

To my mind, it's this complexity of conflicting goals, the sheer number of players, and the huge potential for each game to play out very differently that has never adequately been dealt with in a true theatre-level simulation of the Mediterranean front.

Yes, a division-level approach would mean individual battles are not as detailed as most "desert war" games, which focus exclusively on the conflict in Libya/Egypt. That's OK. The fascination in the game, just as with DC3, is in the meta-dynamics around politics, logistics, and macro decisions about force allocation, not about detailed modelling of which tank regiment attacks which ridge in the middle of Cyrenaica somewhere.

The challenge doing this with DC is that you really can't just abstract naval operations away in a Mediterranean game...

[IslandInland]

warspite1

Well Vic, having seen what you have achieved here, if you ever did look to do something in the Mediterranean theatre (June 1940-September 1943) I would love to be involved. It is a dream of mine that one day, hopefully before I drop off this mortal coil, I will get to play a fun, colourful, but historically-sound game of the theatre that involves land, air and naval warfare. Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps/Italians, Regia Marina vs Royal Navy, the entrance of the U-boats, the Vichy French, Malta, the supply of North Africa, Greece, Crete, Torch.... heaven!

I share this dream. The game you describe with either the DC Barbarossa or War In The West engine would be my idea of wargaming heaven.

In fact at this point I would take any new North Africa/Med wargame.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

warspite1

Well Vic, having seen what you have achieved here, if you ever did look to do something in the Mediterranean theatre (June 1940-September 1943) I would love to be involved. It is a dream of mine that one day, hopefully before I drop off this mortal coil, I will get to play a fun, colourful, but historically-sound game of the theatre that involves land, air and naval warfare. Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps/Italians, Regia Marina vs Royal Navy, the entrance of the U-boats, the Vichy French, Malta, the supply of North Africa, Greece, Crete, Torch.... heaven!

I share this dream. The game you describe with either the DC Barbarossa or War In The West engine would be my idea of wargaming heaven.

In fact at this point I would take any new North Africa/Med wargame.

warspite1

At this point so would I - but would strongly urge any game maker not to relegate / abstract the naval war. That would be a big mistake.