4464

I tried to be scrupulously fair - I hate being a cheerleader but I also hate gratuitous pile-ons. I liked a lot about the game but it didn’t grab me the way it has grabbed some others. I thought I gave the game credit for some great design decisions - I just didn’t like some of the other ones.

4465

I thought you were more than scrupulously fair and the review was fantastic.

I’m not as scrupulous as you are, however, Cataclysm might never get out of its shrink wrap in my house after the work you have put into it. It absolutely seems to be just not my bag. And that’s OK. Time is the precious commodity for me. You’ve saved me a bunch.

4466

Christmas in July! Just got my notification that Skies Above the Reich shipped from MM and will be here Wednesday. Also just ordered Smolensk: Barbarossa Derailed from CLS Games. Now if I can just get them through the door without The One Who Shall Not Be Named seeing them…

“Hey, what’s that under your shirt?”

“Why nothing snookums, I’ve just been putting on a little weight lately…”

4467

I disagree with this assessment a bit, OCS barrage isn’t modelling on call fire, but mostly pre planned fire the kind you saw quite rarely in WW2. It was rare because the stockpiling of munitions necessary to create an operational level effect was a quite major logistical effort. So the kind of tactical support I think you have in mind cannot be abstracted easily into combat factors. Especially when there is a long tradition in overrating German combat power and underrepresenting the trump card of the Allies: wildly superior artillery tactical support.

I can see this causing trouble in some campaigns: it is indeed a shortcoming of OCS models. I am not sure that the advantage above can be satisfactorily accounted for with “moar barrages”.

Air ops in OCS as I understand them portray the amplified effect of air power in disrupting supply and road movement, with a direct impact in endurance and sustainability of combat power over extended periods of time. Air power is expensive in its own way but setting it up isn’t an operational problem, but a theater level/strategic one. It is more flexible, but packs way less of a punch.

4468

Oh, I definitely understand what you’re getting at. If every panzer division could cheaply DG any hex they want with their artillery, it’d be kinda ridiculous, though I do feel that the hip shooting capability in this game is somewhat ridiculous given the limitations of ww2 airpower. It’s been around for a long time, though, and I can adapt. It’s just strange that a lot of the small artillery units that have these nice counters are mostly blockers. The armored field artillery battalions of the US Armored divisions, for example, offer nothing when they’re not doing the aforementioned barrages.

Still, I definitely respect the system for trying anyway, and I somewhat feel that you could only criticize this in a system that makes the attempt to model it, where in many systems, all we could do is argue about what the strength/attack rating for a division or battalion should be.

4469

Nice summary of the Smolensk campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIt-cOOdXPw

4470

Definitely, this is not a new discussion, one that I remember reading a while ago covers many points of view

My own opinion pretty much is that of the poster “Michael Cameron” in that thread.

4471

I was just skimming the OCS rules to remember what I have gotten myself into with Smolensk: Barbarossa Derailed. Came across a house rule that I might use regarding the artillery supply issue you guys discussed above:

HR-7. Artillery Barrages (10.1). Two
options (use one, not both):
• Allow an artillery unit to fire half of
its barrage factors (to save on cost).
• Reduce barrage cost by 1T if the arty
is all currently fueled via 12.5c’s A
(formation) and/or B (HQ) method.
Commentary: Many players want the
option to fire cheaper barrages. One of
these might scratch that itch.

4472

Skies Above the Reich arrived today. Set it up and played a quick '42 practice mission. It was brutal. We jumped the bombers near the target with 4 experten Bf-109 pilots. The bombers had 5 little friends who were there for the whole mission although none of them ever intercepted us. Our fighters made two passes through the bombers and scored one or maybe two hits, I can’t recall now. Meanwhile they got shredded between our own flak and return fire. All four aircraft ended up in Fate boxes, two with severe cockpit damage and two with severe wing damage. Both aircraft with cockpit damage crashed with one pilot KIA and the other wounded. Both aircraft with wing damage exploded with both pilots KIA. We scored 0 VP’s. Welcome to war! LOL

4473

Played another '42 mission today. Our 4 experten Bf-109’s intercepted the bombers inbound to their target. Their little friends headed for home on turn 3 while we were climbing to make an oblique run out of the sun. I’ll spare you most of the gory details. Our first pilot to attack crashed into a bomber which immediately disintegrated his aircraft while forcing the bomber to fall out of the formation. We inflicted 4 hits on another bomber but one of our fighters was forced to exit and head for home, lucky for him (!), while the other suffered severe cockpit damage. Our remaining fighter tried to attack two more times scoring no more hits and suffering a severe elevator hit on his last pass. No pilot was seen bailing from the fighter with the cockpit fire as it spiraled in. The fighter with the elevator damage crashed on landing and the pilot was killed. At least we scored 2 VP’s for the fallen inbound bomber this time but lost 3 pilots KIA again. Ouch.

4474

Thanks for the heads up @Ironsight - I would personally go with the first one on a matter of principle, but I would be wary of unbalancing some of the games (like Baltic Gap) a bit.

4475

In other words, if it looks like a boardgame, plays like a boardgame, then it is a boardgame even if you use a mouse to move its counters around on your 50 inch monitor. Just wrap your head around that and you will live long and prosper.

Thoughts? All we need is VASSAL modules with an AI and automated game mechanics?

4476

They would in many cases be a significant step up from most PC-specific wargames. The limitations of the board impose design discipline that actually makes a game more presentable and understandable. I would love to play a PC OCS game or a PC version of Simonitch '44.

4477

Since the article mentions Empire in Arms and World in Flames, did Matrix ever get those into decent shape? I think he is mistaken about Guns of August. I don’t think Frank Hunter’s game is port of a board game.

I haven’t played the digital version of Twilight Struggle, but it seems pretty well done and I wish Matrix would have put that kind of effort into those games.

4478

Very good point. Neither of those games actually delivered on the promise of translating the boardgame experience into PC.

I personally find WiF to be only barely playable in hotseat mode, and the multiplayer mode has been in development for ages and still rather sketchy. About the EiA PC port I only got second hand feedback, which could be summarised as “we would have rather played via actual mail, thank you very much”.

While WiF isn’t precisely what I would call a “playable” boardgame - I have only seen it live once, and that was a whole wargaming club effort! - I think EiA is supposed to be a lighter kind of monster.

4479

I have devoted quite some thought to the former, and my conclusion is that one would need to do some important changes into how some aspects of the game work in order to meet the expectations of players and have some decent user experience.

For instance, you don’t want to have a very complex turn structure where control goes back and forth between players very often. Against the computer or over a direct TCP/IP connection it can work (see John TIller’s classic Napoleonic/ACW games), but it totally kills asynchronous multiplayer. This implies, from my point of view, that one needs to changing the Reaction system and/or changing the game from IGOUGO to WEGO… as I think that reaction is a key mechanic to get that feeling that OCS has, and if you kill it, I think you end up with an inferior game. I could be convinced otherwise…

Also, the supply system could/should be greatly automated, as overall playability would increase a lot with some form of planning support in the UI. I also think that avoiding to give players carpal tunnel syndrome is a good thing.

Something like, “Computer, I want to conduct this many attacks and this many barrages over these hexes, please computer figure out how to bring the supply there as quickly as possible, thanks very much”. That would be actually quite easy in principle, you don’t need to invent efficient algorithms as somebody else has done that legwork already, given the highly abstract notion of supply in OCS (there’s only one type of product, every mover can move any kind of supply, only difference is mobility).

Optimizing those algorithms without giving away efficiency in plans to obtain the kind of run-times gamers expect in turn based games (i.e. instant responses) would be quite challenging requiring some bespoke heuristics.

Are those two things I mention absolutely necessary? Probably not, but I think they would both go a long way to get something that “works”.

4480

Bill Gray’s article reads as if he never actually played those buggy (and creaky) PC offerings he cites (Tiller, et al). And he doesn’t discuss the functionality inside the Vassal modules he refers to (well he doesn’t refer to modules, he mentions it offhand belying no familiarity with it).

It’s a nice attempt at a think piece, but it reads a little thin on the topics he deals with. To wit: he should play more computer games than Tiller or Matrix to get a feel for what that industry can accomplish and actually play some boardgames on Vassal.

I agree with his final thesis (Boardgame as a design philosophy, rather than a thing) but a lot of his presumptions (I read that “survey” for JMIC when I was there- pretty thin gruel…most industry commentary in the old days when it was surveyed and studied was that Boardgamers played solitaire because they couldn’t find opponents) just make no . As well, AI failures and technical issues have plagued all the “successes” he touts (I guess the fact that the crappy WiF PC game was released counts as its "success? Same for the PC version of EIA…). Most of the real PC-port successes have been games where is it easy to play someone else.

4481

@Navaronegun can you say more about the Third Reich mod for Strategic Command WWII that you mentioned in the Game of the Month thread? I own the game but did not know about the mod. I had the Avalon Hill board game when I was a kid but didn’t know anyone who wanted to play (except my buddy who I beat badly once that that was all she wrote) and I’ve been looking for a computer version with decent AI ever since.

4482

It’s still the same Strategic Commander WWII game, but all the units are basically 3R units (i.e. 4-6 Armored Corps for Germany, 10 Factor Fleets (instead of 9 :) ). UK has 2-5 Armors, 4-5s can be built. Same for Infantry (1-3s, 2-3s 3-3s, Western Allied 3-4s)… The only difference is in the Air: Tac Air is added, so there are “3-8” Fighters and “3-8” Tac Air, instead of ye olden 5-8 Air. Subs are fewer, but more powerful in Strategic Warfare. Same goes for Bombers. HQs are basically Army Group HQs.

Poland '39 Pre-DOW and Construction Pools below for Germany

A3R1
A3R1.jpg1431×736 236 KB

A3R2
A3R2.jpg1539×802 215 KB

The scripts are all based off the Variants/Special Rules in the original versions of A3R. So most of the time the NA Colonies and Syria will go Vichy…but not always. There is a chance that the Yugo Pro-Allied Coup will not happen. etc. They seem to have used the Variants that were in on of the General Articles. It really feels more like 3R with General article additions, and with simple research categories ("Aircraft, “Armor”…) using the game’s research engine. Diplomacy and entries are like the base game with 3R-ish additions (the Eastern Garrison rules are a LOT like 3R).

Research and the Eastern Med for more perspective on the map

A3R3
A3R3.jpg1401×1053 229 KB

A3R4
A3R4.jpg1659×754 176 KB

And with soft build limits unchecked, the Force Pools are limited just like 3R. Some types added in at later dates as possible builds (Italian 2-3 Airborne Corps at January 1, 1942.
The 5-6 German Armored Corps January 1, 1943, etc.). And the Hexscale and terrain types are the same.

So a sleek Corps/Army Scale (veering towards Army), a scaled down simpler map, victory based upon objectives in 3R. 3R counters. Force Pools, research, etc. If you have played 3R this mod feels like you are playing 3R. on a PC. Or seriously “channelling” 3R. It’s a nice, uncomplicated, thought-provoking Strategic Second World War game in Europe. And is really well-suited for multiplayer.

I am “Navaronegun” on the server if you want to play a few games. They play quick in Multiplayer. Let me know, and I’ll post a challenge passworded.

EDIT: I wanted to post some screenshots, but can’t figure out how to use Snagit with the game (which doesn’t seem to have a “windowed” option).

Maybe @Panzeh can either school me on what I am doing wrong so I can get some dang screen shots with this game. :)

4483

For screenshots, you can use print screen and then paste into mspaint/photoshop/whatever. I think where I have dual monitors, I can click outside the screen and also be able to use snipping tool/snagit/gyazo/etc on the game.

I’m glad the 3R mod feels like a reasonably faithful take on the game. I can’t speak to it having never played 3R myself, but it does feel quick. I’ve been playing 653H and finding it more enjoyable, but the games go longer, especially when the Russian front begins. That and a lot of ticky-tack upgrades. That being said, you have more room to maneuver, and instead of having the weird divisions/antitank/AA/etc units, everything’s at a corps or army level. It’s intuitive.