Is there a truly Operational wargame out there??

[sandman2575]

JudgeDredd's post about WitP:AE got me thinking about this.

My biggest complaint about WitP (a game I love in many ways) applies to pretty much every 'grand strategy' wargame I've ever played:  namely, the game doesn't do nearly enough to help you keep 'the big picture' organized: what resources (in the broadest sense) you have at your disposal for waging war, and how you want to use them to achieve your goals. With WitP – but by no means unique to this game – the problem is encountered in a User Interface that is not functional and flexible enough, but even more fundamentally, at the level of what you, the player, are supposed to be doing as the 'basic' unit of play, i.e. the little things you do that add up to 'a turn.'

So, it seems to me that grand strategy wargames – whether turn-based games like WitP, assorted AGEOD titles etc., or 'real time' games like Hearts of Iron – have not been very creative in imagining how player-actions – a turn, if you like – could be structured in a more meaningful way – i.e. in a way that better approximates how actual modern wars are organized:  according to operations. 

Most 'turns' are "one day" or "one week" of warfare, or some equivalently arbitrary unit of time.  The day-by-day structure probably makes sense for a smaller scale tactical game, like the Command Ops games ("Battles of the Bulge").  But with a grand strategy game that is designed to play out over a course of years, in territory that, often, spans much of the globe – the day/week turn just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, when you stop to think about it.

Just to be clear – I'm not suggesting that 'turns' should be 'operations', but rather, that grand strategy games (and I'm thinking mostly WW2 here) should implement some kind of operational mechanic that would allow – indeed, force – you to use operations to organize your gameplay and your overall strategic goals.  A mechanic that would help you not only keep track of your warmaking assets, but help you organize them efficiently to achieve clearly-defined goals.  No more pen and pencil!  No notebooks for how you are going to step-by-step drive the Japanese from the Solomon Islands (because how the hell could you remember it all otherwise?)!  No more day-by-day slog moving units with vaguely defined objectives. Something in game that would avoid all this.


Sorry for the wall of text.  This is something I've been mulling over for a while.  I would really love to hear the thoughts of the Grog community on this --

[ComradeP]

If you call that a wall of text, my average post size on other forums must be a mountain of text ;)

Interesting subject to discuss. I'll share my views when the Black Turn launch day is over.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

The game has to use simulated time to keep everything realistically coordinated. If I understand what you are looking for it is a different kind of user interface designed around something. Arrows on the map? Future snapshots of how you mentally visualize everything unfolding? Something else?

[bob48]

The game has to use simulated time to keep everything realistically coordinated. If I understand what you are looking for it is a different kind of user interface designed around something. Arrows on the map? Future snapshots of how you mentally visualize everything unfolding? Something else?

^Beware Monty's 'Phase lines'............

[MengJiao]

JudgeDredd's post about WitP:AE got me thinking about this.

My biggest complaint about WitP (a game I love in many ways) applies to pretty much every 'grand strategy' wargame I've ever played:  namely, the game doesn't do nearly enough to help you keep 'the big picture' organized: what resources (in the broadest sense) you have at your disposal for waging war, and how you want to use them to achieve your goals. With WitP – but by no means unique to this game – the problem is encountered in a User Interface that is not functional and flexible enough, but even more fundamentally, at the level of what you, the player, are supposed to be doing as the 'basic' unit of play, i.e. the little things you do that add up to 'a turn.'

So, it seems to me that grand strategy wargames – whether turn-based games like WitP, assorted AGEOD titles etc., or 'real time' games like Hearts of Iron – have not been very creative in imagining how player-actions – a turn, if you like – could be structured in a more meaningful way – i.e. in a way that better approximates how actual modern wars are organized:  according to operations. 

Most 'turns' are "one day" or "one week" of warfare, or some equivalently arbitrary unit of time.  The day-by-day structure probably makes sense for a smaller scale tactical game, like the Command Ops games ("Battles of the Bulge").  But with a grand strategy game that is designed to play out over a course of years, in territory that, often, spans much of the globe – the day/week turn just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, when you stop to think about it.

Just to be clear – I'm not suggesting that 'turns' should be 'operations', but rather, that grand strategy games (and I'm thinking mostly WW2 here) should implement some kind of operational mechanic that would allow – indeed, force – you to use operations to organize your gameplay and your overall strategic goals.  A mechanic that would help you not only keep track of your warmaking assets, but help you organize them efficiently to achieve clearly-defined goals.  No more pen and pencil!  No notebooks for how you are going to step-by-step drive the Japanese from the Solomon Islands (because how the hell could you remember it all otherwise?)!  No more day-by-day slog moving units with vaguely defined objectives. Something in game that would avoid all this.


Sorry for the wall of text.  This is something I've been mulling over for a while.  I would really love to hear the thoughts of the Grog community on this --

  I think the time has come to remedy this mess.  I think the remedy is making the player's role explicit: he is say an Army commander.  I've thought about this partly as a by-product of reading the first two vols of Glantz on Stalingrad (the third "volume" which is at least 2 books is coming out in May 2014).  If you look at what a Soviet army commander had to deal with, it was pretty amazing -- he had to figure out whether to be at the tactical HQ of the moment or the communications hub.  Whether to use radios at all.  What to do if he got a phone call from STAVKA.  How to get himself from place to place (truck?  Horse?  Airplane?  Wagon?  Footpath? Swimming?)
And then what kind of information does he have?  Not a game map, but a set of situation reports of varying reliability.
Of course he can have that information summarized on a map, but some might be out-of date etc.
Anyway, the game events (in terms of fighting) would have to be done without being explicitly in the player's interface.  there would be no counting out movement and strength and parceling out support.  He'd have to set up the communication protocols for calling for artillery and air outside a unit (say a divisions) organic support.  He might see enemy artillery hitting an area long before he got reports through channels of the artillery fire etc. etc.

[MengJiao]

Anyway, the game events (in terms of fighting) would have to be done without being explicitly in the player's interface.  there would be no counting out movement and strength and parceling out support.  He'd have to set up the communication protocols for calling for artillery and air outside a unit (say a divisions) organic support.  He might see enemy artillery hitting an area long before he got reports through channels of the artillery fire etc. etc.

Note to self: in terms of play, this would be organized in terms of actions, each of which might consume time and resources.  For example, if he goes forward to observe the front that would take time and cause confusion in communications and administration in various places.  If he drives up and uses the radio, he might be killed or he might be trapped in a traffic jam or stuck in mud or snow etc.
  He can also assign tasks to his staff (find the tank repair shop behind x division and see if you can get some tanks up to the front or see about unloading fuel etc. etc.) and of course he has to write letters home, check with his superiors and maybe find out what is going on with armies around him.  This would be of interest for say Theater commanders such as Weichs in 1944 pulling army group E out of the Balkans -- apparently he never bothered checking on Army Group South in Roumania and Bulgaria and was surprised when the Russians, Roumanians and Bulgarians all came after his lines of communication.  Perhaps he should have spent some action time checking with Feisseler outside normal channels?

[sandman2575]

The game has to use simulated time to keep everything realistically coordinated. If I understand what you are looking for it is a different kind of user interface designed around something. Arrows on the map? Future snapshots of how you mentally visualize everything unfolding? Something else?

What I'm envisioning is some kind of game mechanic that would focus the player's actions around the planning and carrying out of operations. 

It's admittedly hard for me to picture how this might work in WitP -- although I can see something like it working in GG's War in the East or the Decisive Campaigns games.  Actually, WitE gestures toward 'operationality' in some ways, for example, in the way it forces you to immobilize certain fronts -- say, the stalemated Army Group North around Leningrad -- in order to divert resources toward a front where you want to go on the offensive -- like AGS for Case Blue in '42.  I like this kind of thing a lot.  But the problem is, WitE doesn't go further in making the experience of carrying out an offensive operation tangible.  You have to more or less imagine what you're launching is an 'operation'.  The game needs to more both to display the unfolding of an operation and use the operational structure as the thing that's keeping everything -- OOBs, C&C, logistical flow of resources and reinforcements -- organized.

So exactly what am I visualizing?  I have an idea but unfortunately have to bug out for a few hours -- but will be back to try to explain in concrete terms what I'm talking about.  In the meantime, please keep your thoughts coming !

EDIT -- @MengJiao -- make the game that deals with these kinds of issues and I will be your first customer!  Actually, I think you're going down to a level of fine-grained detail that's more sophisticated than what I'm envisioning.  But fascinating stuff.

[MengJiao]

The game has to use simulated time to keep everything realistically coordinated. If I understand what you are looking for it is a different kind of user interface designed around something. Arrows on the map? Future snapshots of how you mentally visualize everything unfolding? Something else?

What I'm envisioning is some kind of game mechanic that would focus the player's actions around the planning and carrying out of operations. 

It's admittedly hard for me to picture how this might work in WitP -- although I can see something like it working in GG's War in the East or the Decisive Campaigns games.  Actually, WitE gestures toward 'operationality' in some ways, for example, in the way it forces you to immobilize certain fronts -- say, the stalemated Army Group North around Leningrad -- in order to divert resources toward a front where you want to go on the offensive -- like AGS for Case Blue in '42.  I like this kind of thing a lot.  But the problem is, WitE doesn't go further in making the experience of carrying out an offensive operation tangible.  You have to more or less imagine what you're launching is an 'operation'.  The game needs to more both to display the unfolding of an operation and use the operational structure as the thing that's keeping everything -- OOBs, C&C, logistical flow of resources and reinforcements -- organized.

So exactly what am I visualizing?  I have an idea but unfortunately have to bug out for a few hours -- but will be back to try to explain in concrete terms what I'm talking about.  In the meantime, please keep your thoughts coming !

EDIT -- @MengJiao -- make the game that deals with these kinds of issues and I will be your first customer!  Actually, I think you're going down to a level of fine-grained detail that's more sophisticated than what I'm envisioning.  But fascinating stuff.

  I guess my suggestions are a more extreme way of pointing out that one way games could go would be to focus on the player's role.  where he is in the command structure would clarify things a lot.  In WitPAE for example  -- who are you?  You can instantly set up search patterns ANYWHERE, but you can't get the political clout to get a battalion out of Australia for months.  The game has no real focus (I played it for years -- though in the end mostly in the editor -- I'd reached the point where I was interested in the Pro-Japanese tribes around the Bismarck Sea and I was working out ways for them to help the Japanese war effort -- I HAD TO STOP!).  Some focus would have helped.

[undercovergeek]

There's makings of a game right here!!! Call it cincpac if you will and you are desk bound receiving only combat reports and intelligence reports, you're immediate impact is only local - you must transmit orders to various cincs and admirals and wait for them to respond - maybe have a global view but you can only influence things directly in an immediate sphere around you

[jomni]

World in Flames? In every impulse you select actions : air, naval, land, combined. You can make very limited number moves that is not part of the core action chosen.  Once your units get disorganized through combat they can only be reorganized by an HQ, but that disorganizes the HQ which will only recover the next turn (not next impulse). You could spend production points to buy offensive chits to enable large continuous operations in a turn across multiple impulses. So in the end, action takes place in certain areas.  Not a big war across the globe. A lot of pre planning is necessary.   

The trun structure is fluid, divided by several impulses. The number of impulses vary by season and a random factor. Each impulse is broken down into very specific phases. Time is abstract.


I think Advanced Tactics is a nice operational game despite being called 'tactics'.   It has got logistics written all over it. You deal with forming your own OOBs and worrying how to keep units in supply and replacing your losses. You think about how many to order per turn (production)  and how to get them to the front lines.

[OJsDad]

In Flash Point: Red Storm they have modeled the delay orders feature nicely.  You give your units orders, but it may be a long time before some carry them out.  It all depends on C3.  I was just thinking of this the other day and thought it should be implemented in all Empire Building games.

In Victoria 2 they have a feature that you can design and save war plans.  You can build and save multiple at at time.  I think this is one thing that was being asked for.

[MengJiao]

There's makings of a game right here!!! Call it cincpac if you will and you are desk bound receiving only combat reports and intelligence reports, you're immediate impact is only local - you must transmit orders to various cincs and admirals and wait for them to respond - maybe have a global view but you can only influence things directly in an immediate sphere around you

  Might not be much fun as an Admiral or somebody who mostly goes to meetings like General Marshall in WWII.  Alan Brook on the phone to Churchill trying to get a British Army division evacuated rather than sent off to get captured trying to boost the French, would be more like the operational level that might be interesting.

[BanzaiCat]

Remember Balance of Power and Hidden Agenda, by chance? Both are very good games (old, but good) where you play a leader with a board of advisers (that you pick out) that give you info and you make decisions on what to do. I always wondered why they didn't make more games like that, or updated versions - unless I've missed something which is totally possible.

Or even Shadow President, which I think was more about world opinion than anything else. I loved messing around in that game...I remember nuking Jamaica for the hell of it and sent all 5,000 warheads in America's arsenal to flatten the island. Needless to say America went into revolt and my President was assassinated. Fun times.

[Sir Slash]

I've been eyeing World in Flames for some time now. It looks to be a real monster strategy game, with a monster price ($99). Anybody out there tried it? I haven't found a single review.

[Rayfer]

I've been eyeing World in Flames for some time now. It looks to be a real monster strategy game, with a monster price ($99). Anybody out there tried it? I haven't found a single review.

It intrigues me too but at that price I can't afford it. I've been reading some of the AAR's on the Matrix forums. Quite a complicated game but reading them left me even more intrigued.