Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re:  WWII why NOT abstract?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:02:15 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Better BRP system?

In article <1992Aug20.162659.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
> In <1992Aug11.150323.3367@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu 
...
>>> 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!

	I meant in terms of game time.  When your turns are 3 months long, most
naval units will move similarly.

	Also, Bismark's superior protection and firepower came at the expense
of range.  German ships were designed to operate in the North Sea, and not in
the open oceans.  Bismark would have been a lot more formidable if it could
have operated at sea for a longer period of time.

>>> 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.

	Agreed.

>>> 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.

	That's one of the things that has always bothered me about the 3-month
game turn.  You simply don't have the flexibility to do things that really
happened.  Yes, it is one of the corners cut for playability, but did the game
designers ever toy with the idea of letting naval units do N missions, and each
mission costs M BRPs?
	That way you get flexability, but with an upper limit on what the ships
could do.

>>        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.

	Apparently carriers are going to be separate counters.  How this will
be worked out, I don't know.

	But a BRP cost per mission might make it more realistic.  That way you
can have ships fight two major battles (as long as you have BRPs :) in the same
game turn.
	Strategy and hidden movement become even more important: you know
there's a task force moving into the Coral Sea, but how many ships do you
oppose it with?  Should you save BRPs for another battle that turn?

>>        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?

	Yep.  But the BRP system lends itself to such accounting procedures. 
The more I think about it, the more I would like an expanded BRP total and the
have the actual costs for doing battle/moving be subtraced from the BRP total.
	That way going for the 3-1 incurrs BRP costs that will leave you with
less offensive capability against an opponent who uses more 1-1 and 2-1
attacks.
	You want your infantry to move from Paris to Brussels in one game turn? 
Fine, BRP for moving with a 2-3 costs: N BRPs.  Want to move even further? 
Fine, M BRPs.  The movement factor would still be needed to provide an upper
bound on movement.
	Similarly, attacking with aa 2-3 costs X BRPs.  As long as a unit is
successful in attack, it can perform another attack that turn, up to a limit
based on movement factor, attack factor, type of unit (and of course :),
available BRPs.

> 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.  

	:)  I've never played WiF.  Our local stores don't carry it, either. 
(Or it's just never in stock when I'm around.)  What chains usually have it?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board