Game Integration
 

Have just been reading the previous thread (and thinking it's something I'd like to get involved with) and it's raised a question. Has anybody ever tried to integrate WinSPMBT with a more strategic game, so that one can also play the 'bigger picture'? Wherever you are in this great game, you are (nearly) always part of a larger force, whether it be a division, task force or even a massive invasion force, and I certainly want to metaphorically look up sometimes and ask "Hey, I wonder how the rest of the war's going?"

I doubt that any computer-based strategy game will get anywhere near the 92-nation scope of this one, but if anybody's found one or has tried anything on these lines, please let me know.

Thanks
Richard H

Re: Game Integration
 

Hi Richard. Bridging the gap. The only games I know that integrated strategic and tactical aspects are Medieval Total war and Napoleon Total War. But the tactic is very basic.
Join the previous thread and see that we can invent.
Various heads think better.
There were war games that implemented the strategists (and still do) long before there were computers. Must be investigated as usual. We could implement this type of game at the strategic level and the outcome of battles with our loved game SP.

Re: Game Integration
 

There have been several attempts over the years. The key is finding a game/system that handles the strategic part (mainly the ability to track the forces on the larger map) as well as getting players to take on the higher level command roles. Seems few people want to be "in charge" of any team when it comes to actually playing and even more are less interested in being in positions to be ordered around by those "leaders". ;)

Re: Game Integration
 

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a multi-player environment, and I certainly understand folk's reluctance to "take orders" - bit too much like a work environment:)

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

@ Roman - will do!

Re: Game Integration
 

I'm actually converting a campaign system for tabletop miniatures to handle this part. Seems to be coming along pretty well at least so far. Now I just need to put it into an actual document instead of a bunch of notes. :D

Re: Game Integration
 

Double_Deuce is closer to get¡¡¡¡ Bravo¡¡¡

Re: Game Integration
 

You can use a strategic game like TOAOW to keep track of units & use a lot of its rules i.e movement supply or simplify them a bit. As this lists units in each formation tanks AA AT etc using the editor to quickly adjust at end of each battle is generaly good enough. Okay you abstract a bit unless want to keep a spreadsheet & record in detail, got 7 AA units left for example doesnt tell you what but just abstract from full strength unit. Easy enough to keep tabs on diffrent formation types tank mech etc & types 1st 2nd line. Playing even a small front like this though you will lose a few years of your life :)
Important I think to make the game work is R&R to easy n game just swings back n forth, to repair units really need to come out of the front line abstarct it by saying if attacked while doing R&R 1/3 of units cannot take part. Also using something like if reduced below 40% disbanded enter reinforcement pool makes things easier. Treating citys as resource makers gives a reason to take them to citys "producing" your R&R points dont all have to produce the same making some more important than others, lose that city you lose its R&D points so things get tougher.

Re: Game Integration
 

Really interesting, myself have been thinking about it too, but don't know how.
Especially if it comes to PBeM then there is one jury to rule both sides.

What Imp said is interesting; anyone has had any success with Panzer Campaigns / Modern Campaigns?

Re: Game Integration
 

Imp - TOAOW? Speak English please, Professor, you're talking to an old man here!

But yes, R & R points v important in the strategic world. Also stuff like oilfields, factory complexes etc. Bomb those out of existence & your opponent may have the shiniest kit in the world - and zilch with which to run it!

Re: Game Integration
 

That would be The Operational Art of War III PC Game. Advanced Tactics: Gold might also be good for that purpose to some extent but not sure how detailed into individual unit tracking it goes.

Re: Game Integration
 

You could also check http://luis-guzman.com/OpenGen.html for a free solution, the game abstracts most things-players-probably-don't-want-to-handle, and can be (easily?) edited to get us a pretty good map to look at.

...Yes, it's a panzer general clone.

Re: Game Integration
 

Here's an idea for a strategic team game that I came up with in 2009 for WinSPWW2; but I got distracted by a few things, so it's not been tried.


Brigade Campaign

Teams
Two teams, doesn’t matter how many on each team, as long as they are equal, but let’s say four a side.
Each team has a team leader (Brigadier), who may also command one of his four battalions.

The campaign could be 3 to 5 rounds, of four battles a round (so each player fights one battle a round).

Each battle will be one player against one player, all battles will be meeting engagements. There will be no V-Hexes on the map.

Map Grid
The front lines would be four maps long (if 8 players), and the map grid would be seven maps deep for a four round battle. Doesn’t matter if the maps actually inter-lock, as long as they are from the same theatre.

All 28 maps would be picked out ahead of time. Each player could pick out 3 or 4 maps to be randomly assigned to the map grid.

Points
In the first round each team leader (Brigadier) gets 12,000 points, or 3000 points for each battalion.
After looking at the maps, and considering his Battalion commanders, he can distribute those points to any of the four sectors along his front lines.
He could give each Battalion commander 3000 points, or could give two 4000 points and two 2000 points.

We could impose a minimum of 15% of Brigade total (1800 pts) and a maximum of 50% of Brigade total (6000 points) per sector/Battalion. This would mean that in a worst case scenario a battalion could be outnumbered about 3 to 1; but if that did occur the stronger Battalion’s Brigade would be weak in other sectors.

Each battle would be set up at 10,000 points vs 10,000 points, but each player only spends what he has been given by his team leader/Brigadier.
Therefore, each Battalion commander won’t even know how many points the enemy has, that he is facing.

Sectors
Each Brigadier would also choose where he wants each commander. After both sides have assigned battalion commanders and points to sectors, they would find out which enemy Battalion Commander/Commanding Officer (CO) they are facing. COs must stay in the same sector for the remainder of the campaign. Unless a CO has to drop out, in which case he could be replaced.

In subsequent rounds, a draw will mean you stay on the same map. A win means you advance a map on the map grid.

Zones
Zones represent a column of maps at various depths:
• Front Line
• Objective
• Rear
• Deep
On the Map Grid, Zones are identified by a letter: A through G

Brigadier (Team Leader)
The Brigadier will control the following aspects of the campaign:
• The study of all maps to determine the best sectors to defend and attack
• Which sector each CO is assigned
• How many purchase points each Battalion receives
• The distribution of Brigade artillery (10% of Brigade force points)
• Assignment of air support
• The mission of each Battalion (defend, probe, attack) for each battle

Commanding Officer (Battalion Commander)
A CO cannot choose where he will fight, or how many purchase points, artillery and aircraft support he gets. But he will have control over what units he purchases, and complete strategic and tactical control over his own battles.

Artillery
Artillery is maximum of 10% for whole Brigade, but again the Brigadier can distribute as he sees fit.
So if round one has 12,000 points then Brigade has max 1,200 of arty. The Brigadier may give two sectors 4000 points and two sectors 2000 points, but he may allot 400 points of arty to each of the 2000 point Battalions and only 200 arty to each of the 4000 point Battalions.

Air Support
All battles set to 6 aircraft.
Brigadier can assign up to 6 flights of aircraft in total.

V-Hexes
No V-hexes will be needed on any maps.

All Battles setup
Points: 10,000 vs 10,000 (but CO only spends what given by Brigadier)
V-Hexes: 0 (will have to put one on the map edge)
Aircraft: 6 (only purchase aircraft if given air support by Brigadier)
Visibility: Use previously agreed standard levels
Artillery: Can purchase as much as given by Brigadier (but Brigadier can only assign artillery up to 10% of total Brigade)

Round Two and Refit Points
Each Brigade gets the force points that survived the first battle, plus refit points at the start of round two.
Calculate surviving force points by taking the total score of the enemy and deduct that from the battalion’s start points.

Now here’s an interesting bit:
The refit points depend on the depth of penetration on the map grid (success is rewarded).

Here's a Map Grid for two 4 man teams (8 players/battalions)

http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/5...ridrefitfr.png

If the allies had three draws and a win. They would get refit points of 3x1500 for the draws and 1x2000 for the win. For a total of 6500 refit points. If the allies lost 5000 force points in round one, then they add their remaining 7000 points to the 6500 refit points. Giving the Brigadier 13,500 points to distribute in round two.

The Axis had three draws and a loss. Giving them 3x1500 and 1x1000 for a total of 5500 refit points to add to their remaining force points.

The Allied Brigadier may then give more points to his successful battalion commander in an attempt to get another win and 2500 ‘rear’ refit points. But even if that commander gets a draw, he remains on the enemy ‘objective’ map and wins his brigade 2000 refit points for round 3.

Victory Conditions
After four rounds, the victory is decided by ground captured.
You get one point for each map grid you’ve advanced.

Misc
Depending on the date, theatre, the allied players could have US, UK, Polish sectors; the Axis, Italian or German.

28 maps shouldn't be a problem, we would use pre-existing maps; there's no reason at all why the streams and roads should match. Most of the maps wouldn't even be used.

All turns would be the same for all battles and visibility would be the same for all battles in a round. No problems there.

Each sector/map is independent, so no direct or indirect fire will cross sectors/maps. Artillery support will have been committed to a sector prior to the battle.

I’m not sure if a referee would be needed. Even the maps could be placed randomly prior to deciding which side starts east and west.

If a 'front is broken' (on a particular map), a player is probably going to win that battle. So on the next battle he gets to start on the map that is deeper into enemy territory. IRL a battalion is highly unlikely to move two maps (10 to 12KM) in one battle (one to two hours) you'd out-run your supply, and there's casualties, repairs and replacements to organize before the next battle.




Cross

Re: Game Integration
 

Thanks Cross. It is a very important contribution as executing the ideas that are hanging around here.
I suppose that Cross speech a campaign to human vs human. The initial proposal of Double_Deuce is to make a campaign vs IA. But we can reach a accordance.
A question for everyone. What do you think if you only use one thread? Since we're talking about something similar in the campaign thread vs Ai mordern.
Precisely in that thread suggest that unify ideas and let's give more concrete shape.
I think there are several theaters proposed. I say we vote on these proposals and make a list of priorities.
Greetings

Re: Game Integration
 

@ Roman - if we can do multi-thread, it would give much more depth. But then again, I'm not a campaign designer.

@ Cross - looks v interesting, let me have a look in more depth over the next few days (RL is rearing its ugly head!)

@icampwithAWP - if only the link worked, something on the lines of Panzer General would be v good indeed! I was thinking of a cross between that & Harpoon when I posted my original thought. Plus somethng for the fly-boys, of course;)

Richard

Re: Game Integration
 

@ icampwithAWP - got there by typing it in manually. See my comment to Cross re RL . . . . .

Thanks

Richard

Re: Game Integration
 

Dunno what's wrong, i can access the website by typing it, but the link is dead http://luis-guzman.com/OpenGen.html
will try this one again, but that seems odd...
Now it works.

Re: Game Integration
 

Not hard vs a single PBEM player one person updates map units fight all battles & update, then do strategic moves & next round of combat only other piece of paper I had was a list in notepad saying which tank & AFV types were in which & a list of R&D points available each turn. Multi player though with a ref running would probably not work.
1) All battles need to be resolved before can do strategic move.
2) Each side needs a commander to do the strategic move & now the bit people wont like.
He also has to decide who gets support assign air & regional artilley to battles & allocate who gets what repair points.
People will gripe because the battles are not necessarily balanced you could have infantry defending vs an armoured formation with no arty/air or your badly mauled units from last go attacked again by fresh units so its wiped out. Thats the whole idea of the strategy bit try & get the advantage when you attack. Used a simple rule adjacent units could move to counter intercept an attack/enemy move if passed a role on D10 (dice) vs its scouting ability infantry vs mech or armoured had -3DRM.

Re: Game Integration
 

I think we are more than 4 people interested in the experience this integration. Some have already done as Double_Deuce and Cross. So I think before thinking about a PBEM game is good to test vs IA. On the site "The Blitz" told this project to get more people but still no one answered.
I'm thinking how to implement my idea of Russia vs Chechnya. I was complicated by the fact that it is a guerrilla war. Part of Russia if you can think of a regular formation, as a division. But part of Chechnya would have to think in small units. I'm thinking that each company commander and commanding different units that have fighting in the field and then in the city. So each participant has different personages.
This is thought to be variation between the field and urban fighting.
For now I do not look for historical data on the units. But that would take me months. Later if I can change the units investigated.
If someone wants to help is welcome. But I offer my help for another project. I still believe that teamwork is better.
Regards

Re: Game Integration
 

One of the possible battles in Russia vs. Chechnya campaign.
To make this map do not wait too long. I did not want to be a work of art.
This would probably be the first battle of Chechens against Russians. A reinforced company Chechen ambush attempt a Russian column. Russian troops have modern armored but his experience and morality are not so good. The Chechens are tough, experienced and will not invade their territory.
No victory points. The objective of the Chechens is inflicting as much damage to the enemy and then retreat.
I have only one problem with this scenario. As for the Russians to make progress on the road? Should go from east to west. I applied some waypoints but move very little.
I send the files to help me tweak this scenario.
Thanks.

Pd: I send you a map of operations. I had told them that there would be battles in the fields and urban areas. The urban battles would be in the city of Grozny