World War II

[Longshanks]

Having played AACW intensely for a year now, I’m sold on the absolute coolness of the AGE system. I’ve tried some of the other games too, but my favorite period is missing. I expect this has come up before, but if so, I’m raising it again. What we need is:

…………[color="#FFFF00"]World War II[/color]

So, I’m calling for AGEOD to put WWII on your “to do” list as a top priority, and I’m calling on the other players (I’m looking at Manstein, Leibstandarte, and the other WWII-named dudes) to join me.

Yes, I realize that the parent company has the Hearts of Iron series on this very topic. It’s a game with many followers. However, nothing matches the “up close and personal” feel that you get with AGEOD, e.g. having control of your leaders and drawings of the units (as opposed to ersatz cardboard pieces).

Here are a few of the reasons I think WWII would make a great AGEOD game:

- the leadership system would be fantastic with the WWII leaders
- the combat system is good for brigades up to corps
- unit types and specialization already exists
- the weather and movement systems are imminently suitable
- the National Morale system would be perfect
- the production system, and the basis for it, should work great
- the political systems will need expansion
- the event systems should work great
- the guerilla war is compatible
- even the naval system, sometimes cited as the weak link, is off to a good start.

The only part missing is air combat, but there’s no doubt that the engine is adaptable enough to include even that.

I’d bet that WWII (1936-1946) would very quickly become your biggest selling game, and would generate a lot of dedicated, long-term players, a la AACW. You’ve already done WWI, and perhaps Rome is next on your list, so I realize this might be a couple of years down the road.

Let the comments begin!

[Ilitarist]

Nope. AGE engine won't give you modern warfare with frontlines and hundreds of divisions.

[lodilefty]

Nope. AGE engine won't give you modern warfare with frontlines and hundreds of divisions.

Yet.....

[OneArmedMexican]

I am currently playing the Drang scenario in RUS. As far as I know it's the biggest campaign in terms of units on the map ever made in an AGE game. It has convinced me that a WW II simulation should be possible with this engine (something I previously doubted). The engine would need a huge oberhaul, though. It's not just air combat that is lacking. The lack of a system that handles pockets and encirclements is another sore point. The AI greatly deteriorates as the number of units increases and the way it thinks is unsuitable to the simulation of either WW I or II (as far as I know, it thinks in terms of objectives, not in frontlines, pockets or breakthroughs).

But the AGE engine has also some major assets: I am especially thinking of the concept of "marching to the sound of guns". It can be instrumental in simulating frontlines.

RUS and the Drang campaign in particular highlight a lot of these things: for a human player it is possible to establish long continuous frontlines (in ACW you sometimes see a line of mutually supporting corps coverring three or four regions, in Drang I managed to cover almost the entire length of the Dniepr with such a line.

RUS currently has a very annoying bug: an ordinary infantry division is transformed into a fast moving "armoured division" if a tank is added (we are speaking of 5 miles/hour WW I tanks). Such a division moves at a crazy speed - think railway not cavalry!) With them one can actually simulate WW II operations. And the players who exploit this bug automatically adopt tactics reminiscent of WW II : find a weak spot, break through, strike deep and cut off/encircle the enemy. In other words: RUS has its own bug-enabled version of tank warfare (hopefully not for much longer, though ).
To me its the perfect proof that AGE and WW II would work.

A entirely different question is whether we should really root for a WW II game from AGEOD. I was sceptical for a long time. I liked that AGEOD made games about conflicts rarely seen in computer games (BoA, RoP, RUS). But these games have lacked the commercial success that AGEOD needs and we all wish them. Perhaps it is time for them to try their hand at the mainstream ...

That said, I don't think this will happen. HoI is a major moneymaker for Paradox. Why would they develop a competing product under their own roof?

[Philippe]

At the risk of becoming instantly unpopular, I sincerely hope there are no attempts to develop a WW II game.

There is no shortage of games out there covering this subject, some of them more successful than others. But it's a huge subject and, in some respect a bottomless pit for consuming game production energy.

Ageod has built a franchise out of producing solid games on less-travelled subjects. The hobby doesn't really need another Hearts of Iron or Making History, even a successful one. And after the negative reaction to PON I don't think anything less than a smash hit rendering of WW II would be a very good business move. More obscure topics will tend to find more forgiving audiences, because there just aren't going to be that many detail-obsessed critics on the English Civil War or the Indian Mutiny. Having spent time among the WW II crowd, I know from personal experience that they can be rather scary and unforgiving. My own muted criticisms of the glaring ROP map errors are tame compared to what you could open yourself up to from the Bren tripod crowd.

[Durk]

I understand your concern, yet am still oddly attracted to this idea of a WWII ageod take.
I am always mixed between the complexity of ACW or Drang in RUS or the simplicity of the WiA scenarios. Either way, there is always room for another game.
I would favor a redo of ACW with a more abstract rendering of the campaigns with monthly turns and a scale half the size of the current game if I were selecting the next title; however, a World War II situation might be very interesting, if unnecessary complexity did not sacrifice a fun playable game on the alter of too much irrelevant detail. Think 1776 on a global scale. This would still involve hundreds of units and leaders, but would not bury the players in the minutia which can distract from a solid strategic simulation.
The advantage of a mega game at this level is that it would avoid the pratfalls detailed by One Armed Mexican while exploiting the game engine advantages touted by Longshanks.
Of course it is too late to have the new and improved Napoleon Campaigns under the ageod system, so why not WWII?

[Florent]

" It's not just air combat that is lacking. The lack of a system that handles pockets and encirclements"

Actually with initiative leaders at 2 or 3, you can have a situation like the summer 41 with Russian Armies/Division more or less unable to move and overwhelmed by Panzer, of course the same is true with 44 or 45 German Armies having received orders to sresist at all cost.

Nevertheless, there are a need to work more on Aviation and Armor...Front lines are more for a WWI.

[Narwhal]

In my opinion, the AGE engine would rather poorly simulate WWII : the airstrike module is lacking, strategic bombardement, detailled research and production system would have to be added, as well as refined faction-switching ; also the naval module would need a major overhaul, and the usage of "stacks" would not be appropriate.

More importantly, even "1 week" turns would be too long for the dynamism of WWII, and less than 1 week turns (1 day turn ? 2 days-turn ?) would be a huge monster with much more turns than needed.

On the other hand, the DNO scenario proves that the game is just fine for a WWI simulator. Air module would not have to be improved significantly, naval module is good enough with no carrier warfare needed (submarines would have to be added), the front were in general not too fluid, with exceptions, so 1-week turns would be fine (and would create a game of circa 250 turns), and an high level of entrenchment would simulate the trench fairly well (with maybe "range damage" to be added for artillery, so there is attrition even if no-one attacks) and no country changed side during the war.

A good test would be to create an "Eastern Front" mod for RUS. It should be possible, even though the map does not go West enough.

[PhilThib]

A good test would be to create an "Eastern Front" mod for RUS. It should be possible, even though the map does not go West enough.

you could try it with the DNO base for sure... I believe the RUS map is sufficient for a WW1 Eastern Front because the border of 1914 are represented and you could decide that it is game over for the CP if the Russians take the regions adjacent to the OMB's....

FYI, the PON game has artillery ranged bombardment, so the feature exists. May main worry is exactly what OneArmeMexican mentionned about the DNO scenario: the lack of frontlines, the mega stacks, the blitz syndrome...would be fine for the early months of 1914, but not for later...

[Palpat]

Well, it's not like the overwhelming majority of wargames is focused on WWII anyways... One more, one less...

[Longshanks]

That said, I don't think this will happen. HoI is a major moneymaker for Paradox. Why would they develop a competing product under their own roof?

Because, as any car manufacturer will tell you, a hot-selling model will always be duplicated by the originator with a slight twist in order to increase sales even further, and counter copies by others.

I have no idea how "hot" HOI is. The last expansion is about a year old. I recently picked up a download of all three parts for $9. Doesn't sound like a major income source to me.

But only Paradox/AGEOD can know the answer to the marketing question. I'd prefer just to stick to the game quality. I have a couple of the Paradox engine games, but one of the problems with them is: no PBEM, due to the lack of a turn based system. Interacting with your peers is the major fun part of the AGE games, once you've figured out Athena. Plus, I want to see Rommel and Patton's smiling (grimacing?) faces on my monitor!

[gchristie]

As it seems unlikely to me that AGEOD will grant your wish, Longshanks, I think it not in bad form to recommend you try Slitherine's Commander: Europe at War the Grand Strategy Mod 2.0. It is turn based, has PBEM and a very active forum of well-mannered players so it is easy to find a game. The developers of the mod interact with the players much as happens here. FWIW, AACW and CEAW are the only games that I play by email. A word of caution, the game AI is very weak.

And, just because you asked (though he won't smile for anyone...)



I could be totally wrong about AGEOD's plans, but until that happy day arrives should they decide to make a WWII game, I think you might like this game. More information can be found here. Heck, I'd even PBEM 'ya to show you the ropes.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

Turnabout being fair play, I just recommended AACW on Slitherine's forum and have already received a PM from a guy over there that is interested in possibly buying AACW. Just giving back to the Phils

[DarkGarry]

In my opinion, the AGE engine would rather poorly simulate WWII : the airstrike module is lacking, strategic bombardement, detailled research and production system would have to be added, as well as refined faction-switching ; also the naval module would need a major overhaul, and the usage of "stacks" would not be appropriate.

There is also one important concept AKA Frontline - the idea is that there are should be a direction the army is facing and it is much softer when attack it from the rear or flank.

[Baris]

Maybe extending "marching to the sound of guns" range and creating more advanced MC rules can help for trench warfare. AFAIK currently going deep to enemy territory is only restricted by supply and with advanced forts forcing no-enter. I never truly understand how it works.
I trust Narwhal judgment here. WW1 will more be fit for age-engine as armies were not organized and regiments,battalions ,cavalry squadrons were more used versus some company level organized armies in WW2. I think the next problem creating in ww2 game is plausible casualty rates in battles. It is not good in PON and very generic. And plus all the equipment.
I propose WW1 and especially restricted to French&BEF vs German land warfare. But not now knowing for sure engine can simulate French shock tactics but lack of firepower.

[H Gilmer3]

I'd say WW1 myself. Yes, there is WW1 gold, but I find that game almost incomprehensible as much as I want to like it. I'm sure there is a gem in there, but I'd rather have an AGE engine WW1 game. I was kind of hoping for a scenario with WW1 in PON but I realized that it probably would not be exactly what I want after seeing the American Civil War scenario. I'm not saying it is bad or good, just saying probably not as detailed as I would like - and especially for WW1 in PON.

I think a dedicated game/simulation of WW1 using the AGE engine would be pretty awesome. And yeah, it would take some rework of the engine, I'm sure, but the AGEOD people rework it all the time anyway.

[wosung]

As for AGE & WW1:

Besides plans for next year:

Soon we'll get 1914 - 2014. For sure it will be a big media thing, at least in 'old' Europe (well, if it ... still ... exists at that time. If not, even more so). Wouldn't that be a golden opportunity, after Luca's heroic efforts with WW1, to give la grande guerre an AGE treatment?

But, oth, perhaps there will be a PON scen earlier? Or Paradox launches it with it's Clausewitz engine?

Best regards

To be ready for August 2014, the work should start no later than this summer.. we already have a lot of assets available to create this game (map, graphics, some DB), the only one missing is 'Available Time' from the original team right now or in the coming months due to current work load and plans...

So making a WW1 on AGE is entirely feasible - and could be reached in time - if a team of serious and motivated volunteers is ready to take up the deed...
After all, if you consider that RUS was done by indies and, despite the badmouthing of some, well done...this is an entirely legitimate idea

As for AGE & WW2:

I would love to have a serious WW2 TB no clickfeast global game. The HOI series is RT sandbox. For me RT neutralizes global and sandbox neutralizes WW2. I do think the former could be a success on the market. The biggest problem doing it with AGE as it is now could be turn resolution time. Compared to this all other problems arguably are secondary.

Best regards

[Ilitarist]

I would love to have a serious WW2 TB no clickfeast global game. The HOI series is RT sandbox. For me RT neutralizes global and sandbox neutralizes WW2. I do think the former could be a success on the market. The biggest problem doing it with AGE as it is now could be turn resolution time. Compared to this all other problems arguably are secondary.

Best regards

Would do you mean sandox neutralizes WW2? HoI3 made the way you always get WW2 pretty much as it was, with all unbelievable events like Munchen treaty etc. As for realtime - you've got smart pause that can stop you on any given event like your army reached destination.

The biggest problem is not turn resolution but EPIC SCALE. Just on eastern front you get hundreds of divisions plus aircraft. If you make every unit a division and every stack a corpse than you anyway get almost hundred units for each side and scale is to big: each turn you'd basically try to move all front cause on that scale you won't see front breaches and local movement (much like Pride of Nations).

So I can see this kind of game only with local operations. And anyway this game will require very different engine with very different mechanics because of great amount of new unique unit types.

[yellow ribbon]

"The biggest problem is not turn resolution but EPIC SCALE. Just on eastern front you get hundreds of divisions plus aircraft. If you make every unit a division and every stack a corpse than you anyway get almost hundred units for each side and scale is to big: each turn you'd basically try to move all front cause on that scale you won't see front breaches and local movement (much like Pride of Nations)."

depends what kind of players you want to address... for real tactical approaches some should not be able to issue orders more than on corps level or he could stick with HOI

AGEOD as well as PAradox have worked together with MATRIX games, didnt they. So even using AGEOD based maps would be possible, tactical battles need a different approach most people wouldnt like.

MATRIX freshed up a lot of TALONSOFT games of the 1990s, hex based, when you could have hundreds of infantry platoons and batteries and for every unit cars/trucks, armored vehicles, horses. and this was only in ONE single battle.

always liked their ancient approach to decide how far you want to interact inside of tactical battle. battailion size and more of them, or regiment, brigade, division, corps and as larger the unit, as fewer the battles on a row. but also as much more happens between, like new order of battles, upgrades....

For modernizing units, moral, experience, reequipping the troops...it was always far better than HOI (my point of view)

That days, back in 1998 this was the ultimate clue, now they improved it even down to SECTION level of troops, like tank hunter quad, sniper teams, partisans.
drawback, its turn based and even improved it takes very long. No strategical buildups like the 1933 scenario for HOI, Events are excluded and hard-coded by multipliers like HQ efficiency, leaders effecting outcome of battles or simply moral...

when they tried do build it on a modern plattform, like war in the east, war in the pacific it simply overshooted, having old style, new UI, but extremly long campaigns

a lot has been done the last 13 years. sometimes modding the old games is better than cannibalization.

depending on the scale you choose for the map, you actually could see every details.
but this is hardcore tactical gaming and no building up.

[wosung]

Would do you mean sandox neutralizes WW2? HoI3 made the way you always get WW2 pretty much as it was, with all unbelievable events like Munchen treaty etc. As for realtime - you've got smart pause that can stop you on any given event like your army reached destination.

Sorry, but Hoi3 is selled as "sandbox". Marketing speech for "we just don't have the time to make it realistic and plausible". Pacific war, China, surrender of China and Russia, combat models, esp. air & sea, production, research, and, arguably, most important the relative strength of the grand powers - all this is neither realistic nor plausible.

As for smart pause, you just can't watch and even less manipulate, say, a sea battle in the Central Pacific, a landing in France, the bombing of Munich, etc. taking place at the very same time. Here, RT enforces what basically is an operational style of play, focussing on one area at a time. RT virtually makes me neglect the rest of the globe, all the time. It's even hard on the Eastern Front, when you take into account those silly counter stacks moving into different directions from one tiny province to other tiny provinces and you can't figure out your own movement plans while paused because it's just a graphical mess even up zoomed. For me RT and global is bad design, just like the absurd half-focus to make every tiny country in this world "playable".

The biggest problem is not turn resolution but EPIC SCALE. Just on eastern front you get hundreds of divisions plus aircraft. If you make every unit a division and every stack a corpse than you anyway get almost hundred units for each side and scale is to big: each turn you'd basically try to move all front cause on that scale you won't see front breaches and local movement (much like Pride of Nations).

As for epic scale: It should be possible scale & abstract it down. And who says multi-"turn" command by higher HQ's is only made for RT so you don't have to click on each counter every turn. As for scale in WW2 though, a problem is the difference in scale. Ostfront Army groups and Luftflotten vs division and squad sized formations in the South Pac. Both were meaningful in WW2. Now the trick is to design a combat model that fits both.

Regards

[wosung]

Now what about Age WW1: any chance to get an affiliated team together to do it?

Best regards

[yellow ribbon]

Now what about Age WW1: any chance to get an affiliated team together to do it?

Best regards

http://shopus.ageod.com/fiche.html?REF=713578

DONE!

...just needs adjustments...

and thats the heritage, why the designers fear the stacks of doom in a more complex game about WW2, i think.

[Franciscus]

http://shopus.ageod.com/fiche.html?REF=713578

DONE!

...just needs adjustments...

and thats the heritage, why the designers fear the stacks of doom in a more complex game about WW2, i think.

I hope you know WW1 is not a Ageod-engine game. It was done by Calvinus on a different engine. It is a great game, an adaptation of a PhilThib monster boardgame, but very different from Ageod engine games.

Regards

[yellow ribbon]

I hope you know WW1 is not a Ageod-engine game. It was done by Calvinus on a different engine. It is a great game, an adaptation of a PhilThib monster boardgame, but very different from Ageod engine games.

Regards

yeap, thanks for the reminder, but i did know its alien-ware... however, its sold from AGEOD and offering a couple of things i really missed in big brothers games

as i tried to make my point further above, if you look into the history of AGEOD as well as PARADOX you will figure some parts of the games put on top of the engine, but being part in more than 10-15 year old games. being insufficient anyway.

i.e. The system used for commanders, their abilities is known for me since about 1997 but that days it was expressed as Lickert scales and horizontal colored bars instead of the pictures. Computation was pretty close to the AGEOD engine though, either were results. As well as the concept of polital cost for promotions.

also strong need for differing between those who like to shuffle stacks close enough to open fire and those who like to ACT AS A LEADER , that "add engine plus additional new topic" would not work if you seek real combat simulation with tactical as well as strategical decisions, including cards being able to be used to solve events like in the linked game for WW1

i already had a problem with stacks of doom and to high entrenchment outweighting all of the fine AGEOD engine in PON.

magnitudes get too extreme and can be compensated while there is no limit of max. menpower in a single province, neither regarding space, nor efficient supply of troops

despite it, after all that years since WIA and AACW i still love the supply system.... really prefer it to other solution at hand

if it would be Christmas, i would like to mix it that way:

give me:

- AGEOD styled map and supply system, including the battle result generator with some more excel based data for units

- the ability to pick up my own choice how the troops shall be led into the battle.

the normal brigade/division/corps structure on the map, however, either ability to make a tactical stand within the battle.

at least ability to hold back reserves, to hold back for casual fire specifying focus on amored/unamored troops and so on

as others said above, summoning the corps in this large provinces and let them run head on would be the major drawback from most, including AGEODs engine.
on the other side having 60miles (and so on)hexs and having the same effect will overburden even Ageods engine and destroy all valuable simulation

- given Order of battle and just the decision, resource based, WHICH ARMY in which theater of war shall be activated, shipped in, equipped with...instead of this SLIDERS of most other games

[Baris]

MATRIX freshed up a lot of TALONSOFT games of the 1990s, hex based, when you could have hundreds of infantry platoons and batteries and for every unit cars/trucks, armored vehicles, horses. and this was only in ONE single battle.

always liked their ancient approach to decide how far you want to interact inside of tactical battle. battailion size and more of them, or regiment, brigade, division, corps and as larger the unit, as fewer the battles on a row. but also as much more happens between, like new order of battles, upgrades....

For modernizing units, moral, experience, reequipping the troops...it was always far better than HOI (my point of view)

That days, back in 1998 this was the ultimate clue, now they improved it even down to SECTION level of troops, like tank hunter quad, sniper teams, partisans.
drawback, its turn based and even improved it takes very long. No strategical buildups like the 1933 scenario for HOI, Events are excluded and hard-coded by multipliers like HQ efficiency, leaders effecting outcome of battles or simply moral...

when they tried do build it on a modern plattform, like war in the east, war in the pacific it simply overshooted, having old style, new UI, but extremly long campaigns

a lot has been done the last 13 years. sometimes modding the old games is better than cannibalization.

depending on the scale you choose for the map, you actually could see every details.
but this is hardcore tactical gaming and no building up.

War in the East campaign map and unit count actually smaller then Talonsoft or hps France'14 . AFAIK France '14 have 1 km per hex including France and Belgium and it is a huge game but much more enjoyable. But general problem in War in the East- TOW3 or designing ww2 games(Especially in eastern front) is how to balance between realism and gameplay&fun. IMHO it can get boring and predictable even with good victory system.
Traditional Ageod games are fun and killer stacks is not a problem as long as map is big for maneuver. And there is already historical attrition effecting their strenght. But maybe there should be also a parameter to effect movement speed of big stacks not only limited to slowest artillery.

[yellow ribbon]

War in the East campaign map and unit count actually smaller then Talonsoft or hps France'14 . AFAIK France '14 have 1 km per hex including France and Belgium and it is a huge game but much more enjoyable. But general problem in War in the East- TOW3 or designing ww2 games(Especially in eastern front) is how to balance between realism and gameplay&fun. IMHO it can get boring and predictable even with good victory system.
Traditional Ageod games are fun and killer stacks is not a problem as long as map is big for maneuver. And there is already historical attrition effecting their strenght. But maybe there should be also a parameter to effect movement speed of big stacks not only limited to slowest artillery.

depends on the game Baris, as far i remember the OLD civil war games and the OLD eastern front/western front/rising sun used to run with 200m or 250m hexs on the TACTICAL maps.
I remember that in the tactical map, you were not permitted to put more than 160 men/FOUR PLATOONS into a single spot and you wouldnt do it at all, due to unfriendly artillery.

field obstacles could start with 2m height, to 25m, terrains differed in 20m steps

As i said, its hardcore gaming, unlikely to implement in or around AGEOD strategy games, nor Paradoxs bulk ware,

down to section level and every unit can exploit the terrain, has to consider supply etc...!!?

War in the east, scale 10 miles a hex, is a clone standing half way between 1990s battle order and HOI "army groups movement"

the NEW "war in the pacific" runs 40 nautical miles (EDIT!) a hex, doesnt it,
but you mostly operate with whole stacks of units anyway, for most players dont want to take the time to shuffle and observe all single units.

************************

now it depends what kind of map AGEOD would use. I am fine with a style a la AACW, i am not with large provinces in PON.

In PON any experienced player (as well as the AI) will just build a couple of 1200++ stacks and steamroll as long as possible, then hold and have an unnatural high defensive bonus as soon as one could wish.
thats what i saw mainly with the AI in north America around 1860 and western europe after 1900

Works too easy in the large provinces. also after 1880s i never ever experienced any further supply questions, nor movement restrictions but at sea.

its only and prolonging of the arguing from other players, a map like PON would lead to kinda sandbox game. And of that, there are to many out there and the event character of AGEODS games would loose its meaning.

the system of attrition is fine for me, buts as its quasi-linear and easy to be refilled, its closer to a sandbox than many would admit.

but i give you that point, i hereby state in public:

its not only the supply system i prefer to other games, its also the attrition while movements

[Baris]

Excellent post.
Yes the thing about km per hex a bit abstract as well as killer stacks. In war in the pacific I have read using task forces formed from bunch of small undetected submarines or ships were against the house rules. One way or another it is obvious that well presented, designed games can have faults in practical gameplay.

As abstractly speaking for elevation there is entrenchment. Artillery range (AFAIK Which is more advanced in PON) is for splash damage and range in hexes. Supply decay is for preventing use of bigger stacks. It was in Drang scenario. I think it is not yet implemented to other games. But attrition damage can be tuned further. In ROP it was only effecting stacks in coastal regions very frequently.
Other than that strategy gaming nowadays is kind of limited to player controlled research,production, gossip and plotting (which I think even those games benefit people to learn dynasties and history)
Yes PON has some combat faults but still has excellent art and music(ex: Prince Borodin ). Reflecting best the era.

[OneArmedMexican]

The biggest problem is not turn resolution but EPIC SCALE. Just on eastern front you get hundreds of divisions plus aircraft. If you make every unit a division and every stack a corpse than you anyway get almost hundred units for each side and scale is to big: each turn you'd basically try to move all front cause on that scale you won't see front breaches and local movement (much like Pride of Nations).

That is not necessary: One can easily change the scale: That has already been done in the RUS Drang scenario (which still is awfully big): stacks were armies, army hqs became fronts (for the Reds) or army groups for the Germans, what we know as divisions from ACW is a corps in Drang (just as it is a brigade in RoP). AGEOD has always been very good at adapting their engine to the time period in question.

Personally, I believe a few tweaks may suffice to make the AGE engine fit for WW I.

High casualty rates (as experienced in RUS and PoN) can be mitigated to some degree: reduce offensive and defensive stats across the board. In Drang many German infantry units have stats that translate into more than a 80% chance to inflict a hit. With a rate of fire of 3, such units are killing machines. I believe this is the main reason for the huge casualties that can occur in RUS. Clovis took another approach when he lowered cohesion in his mod in order to force retreats more quickly. Neither approach is perfect but a mixture may work. But obviously the masters of the engine know better than anyone else how to tackle this issue - they have been pretty successful at this (WiA may be the best example).

Frontage would need to be increased or the number of troops have to be decreased. In Drang, it is possible to have doomstacks that simply are too big to be effective even with perfect weather and terrain.

[Philippe]

Leaving aside the question of whether any resources should be devoted to yet another game about WW II, I can't help but notice that people are talking about constructing this hypothetical new game as if it were a mod that needed to be developed. In other words, take something that already exists and tweak it until it looks like the game you think you want to play.

That is not how you go about designing a wargame.

You start by defining what aspects of the situation you want to portray, and then you define how those aspects inter-relate with each other. What you are supposed to do is to admit to yourself, explicitly, what the game is about. The game takes place in a WW II setting, but it is about logistics, industrial production, politics, mobilization, war of maneuver, or some combination? You design the mechanics around the game that you're making, not the other way around. Only after you've figured out what the game is really talking about do you start casting around for game mechanics. A designer always has one or more axes to grind, and if he doesn't admit it to himself what he's going to end up with is a mish-mash. To put it another way, if you don't figure out exactly what it is you want to simulate before you figure out how you want to simulate it, what you're almost certainly going to end up with is a game that is about the game mechanics rather than its subject matter.

That's why Total War games tend to be games about the Total War game mechanics set in different period theme parks, rather than games about the periods or wars themselves. They aren't really simulating anything other than Total War games. This was the fundamental failing of most of the Avalon Hill games developed in the sixties, that lead to the game design explosion of the seventies and eighties when people finally woke up and realized that the games they were playing were simulating an Avalon Hill board game rather than an actual situation. And that's why those early games had so many similar game mechanics and combat results tables.

What's missing from this discussion is a game designer with a vision and one or more axes to grind. What you're talking about creating is a WW II-themed simulation of an Ageod game. I'm actually very interested in WW II, and have spent thousands of hours modding it because it is a fascinating subject. But I have absolutely no interest in a WW II-themed anything.

Perhaps what is needed here is a mechanism for modding an existing game (be it WW I Gold or RUS) into the WW II mod that will capture everyone's energy and imagination. Layering extra bits of appropriately-themed chrome onto an existing design is a disastrous way to build a game, but no one ever seems to mind it in a mod because, like Dr. Johnson's dog walking on its hind legs, people will be impressed enough that it can walk at all rather than walk well.

[Pocus]

Good points Philippe. Now, the rule of conduct you describe is the 'ideal world' one. In the real world, you can never set aside totally what are the tools at your disposal and how you can re-use them, even if with very heavy tweaking, into your Vision.
You always have contingencies, said otherwise. If not the engine, it can be technical limitations and you have to do with them. Say you make a PC game in 1990, your contingencies would have been RAM, video resolution, etc. And yet, very good games went out in this period.
Same here. Studios tend to try reusing their previous engine. Paradox engine Clausewtiz is used both for CK2 and HOI3, yet they are not the same boat by far, so reusing tools is not necessarily a problem, if you are willing to alter them and think hard.

[Philippe]

Good points Philippe. Now, the rule of conduct you describe is the 'ideal world' one. In the real world, you can never set aside totally what are the tools at your disposal and how you can re-use them, even if with very heavy tweaking, into your Vision.
You always have contingencies, said otherwise. If not the engine, it can be technical limitations and you have to do with them. Say you make a PC game in 1990, your contingencies would have been RAM, video resolution, etc. And yet, very good games went out in this period.
Same here. Studios tend to try reusing their previous engine. Paradox engine Clausewtiz is used both for CK2 and HOI3, yet they are not the same boat by far, so reusing tools is not necessarily a problem, if you are willing to alter them and think hard.

As you have probably guessed, the process that I am referring to comes out of the board game design world. Back in the seventies and eighties several board wargame companies had no difficulty publishing one new title a month, often with a different game engine. That's the difference between board and computer games -- the lead time and expense for game engine development is vastly different. But one of the side effects is that board game designers from the old days are vastly more experienced than modern computer game designers simply because one of the old board game designers might have thirty or so game engine designs under his belt, whereas the computer designer will be lucky to have two or three.

The limitations of coding time and effort and employee expense are inescapable. Computer games involve a much higher capital cost in time and resources to develop. But that also means that if a computer game designer taps into the board game design process, he'll gain a wealth of experience that he could never hope to achieve by conventional means.

I guess what I'm saying is that to design a computer wargame what you have to do is try to think the process through like a boardgame designer, asking yourself the same questions. When you've constructed the ideal model in your head you're going to have to sacrifice part of the design to the practical realities of using computers as your medium. But that is far superior to limiting and defining your thinking to the computer model alone: you're less likely to make the all too frequent mistake of thinking you've produced a game that reflects a certain period just by adding a little chrome to the game design.

One of the reasons that I tend to like Philippe Thibaut's games is that the process of boardgame design is not exactly alien to him.