From: gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re:  WWII why NOT abstract?
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:26:59 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In <1992Aug11.150323.3367@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu 
(Stupendous Man) writes:
Subject: Re: WWII: Why NOT to abstract?

In article <1992Aug11.033221.17106@rchland.ibm.com>>, seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.
com (Bill Seurer) writes:
>> Why do I think it is better to have the Bismark face the Hood than 4
>> factors face 3?  Well, I think it is more FUN for one thing.  Abstractions
>> have their place, but it depends on what you are trying to simulate.  If
>> the important part of my WWII game is naval combat then maybe I will
>> (*GASP*) simply abstract all land units as factors.  No infantry/armor
>> distinctions since they don't fit the abstraction.  This might make an
>> interesting Mediterranean game with the Italian fleet versus the British
>> with the land combat completely abstract.

>	I too like individual ship games (like VITP).  But there is the issue
>of playability.  If you have individual ships in [A]3R, think about how long 
>it is going to take to resolve each naval encounter.  Since the scope of 
>[A]3R is the entire war, you need to abstract things to keep the level of 
>playability high.  It's already a long game.

I completely agree, playability's the key.  While the detailed naval combat 
system WWII offers would seem to take a long time for a sizeable battle, 
the WiF system has a fair amount of detail, plays quickly and easily and 
integrates well with strategic warfare (showing how the Brits life would've 
been much easier if he could've put strategic supply convoys through a 
controlled Mediterranian).  

Also, a system with a *little* bit more detail can avoid the wargamer's-bane: 
"He only has x number of factors/fleets, so I can be 100% sure of getting 
past him with n+2 fleets/factors."  3R is infamous for rewarding this type of 
bean-counting behavior, which I really hate.  I think WiF's system plays
quickly yet avoids the simple and heavy-handed solutions, whereas WWII's
system offers a bit more detail, at the cost of playing time, for those
who wish it.

>> So, why do 3R and most other WWII games differentiate between different 
>> sorts of land units?  Because they perform differently and that is the
>> emphasis of the game.  I hope you will agree that the Bismark and a
>> bunch of British destroyers (an equivalent number of "factors" if such
>> a thing can exist) will perform differently.

> Movement tends to be the defining factor.  Most ships move the same.

No, actually, few capital ships did move at exactly the same speed.  One
reason the Bismark scared the pee out of Churchill was it was faster
than all the British BBs except the Hood, and had a better protection/
firepower ratio than any of them!  One Bismark sufficed to tie down 6-10
RN BBs, all staying in little packs for mutual protection!

>> Now, is it necessary to abstract naval combat?  No.  SPI's (TSR's) WWII
>> games (and WiF?) don't and they work pretty good. Is it necessary NOT to?  
>> Of course not.  3R doesn't and IT works pretty good too.

>  It's not *necessary*, but in a game the scale of [A]3R you have to cut
>corners on realism.

Agreed, a good game could absract the Bismark's capabilities and provide 
a realistic and playable simluation of the war on the European
continent, now see below....

>> In the Pacific the naval combat was at least as important as the land and
>> air combat.  If an unmodified 3R system were used, it would be flat (and
>> probably not work).  I am not sure that just adding carriers will make it
>> work, either, though I'd be willing to give it a shot!

No, naval combat was THE deciding factor in the Pacific.  Land units held the
all crucial bases, but divisions would've been helpless against battalions
without a navy to supply them and protect from air attack.

>> After all, what would have happened if the battleships had met in a
>> collosal battle just like everyone thought they would?
>> Say, since some of the AH 3R people seem to read this perhaps they could 
>> comment on why 3R abstracts naval and air combat more than ground combat.

I'd have to think the 3R system -- and A3R can't be too much different since 
the three-month turns and land Combat system haven't changed (although naval 
damage and aborting of part of a force would a large positive step) -- isn't 
up to simulating strategic-level naval engagements.  Just thinking about a 
system that would provide for the battles of Coral Sea in May, and Midway in 
June (thousands of miles apart with many of the SAME ships involved) as part 
of one move/combat makes me shudder.  I care less about simulating *what 
happened*, and more about a system that should allow one the freedom to do 
what did happen, so as to be able to do things that *never* happened in a 
realisitic fashion.

>        I'm not associated with AH but IMO for two reasons:
>        1) playability
>        2) the ETO was primarily a ground campaign
>    Significant naval operations (submarines) are even more abstract than
>surface ships.  Even thought the battle of the atlantic was very important,
>[A]3R concentrates on the ground campaigns.

Perfect example;  the detail involved in planning sub operations would bog
down even a naval game!

>        Now, who is going to play a game that has the complexity of the Fleet
>games for naval operations, [A]3R for ground operations and equally complex
>rules for air operations?  You'd spend all day cross-referencing charts and
>tables.  You certainly couldn't play from September, 1939 to August, 1945 in
>one lifetime.  (And keep a family and job :)

The Pacific war is my favorite period of wartime history, and I know well 
how hard it is/would be to simulate the strategic options on a table-sized
game map with a game that won't bore us mortals with details.  I went through
SPI's first effort at that (USN) and many a tactical carrier-vs-carrier game.
I don't think 3R's three-month turns and 9-factor fleet abstractions can do
justice to this theater of war to my satisfaction.

>        There's room for both, sure.  But every game that includes naval and
>air opertions needs to have fully realistic/complex structures for them.
>Brett                                                      

3R plays well in the European theater (even if INF can't walk from Paris
to Brussels in 3 months), where land combats and diplomatic intrigue ruled
all.  For a greater level of simulation in the pacific, I'll go with WWII:PTO,
or WiF, because I just couldn't handle another AH-inspired attack: 
"ah, just one more factor will give me the (unbeatable) 3-to-1, and the 
other two factors will go...here."   Wouldn't Midway have been grimm if
that had been the case?

I must also say, after playing WiF each trip back to 3R is like a nostalgic
ride on my sister's rusty one-speed bicycle.  
-- 
***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---
Brian Gregory				||"When we try to pick anything 
I-net:  GREGORY_B@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU	|| out by itself, we find it
ECE Graduate Student			|| hitched to everything else in
Univ. of Colorado @ Boulder		|| the universe."  --  John Muir
Newsgroups: rec.games.board