I can see this working if you keep it very simple and keep it so the players play only one side in the conflict, 2 sides and I don't see this working out.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Works for me.
The advantage to players on both sides is the fog of war, and a (hopefully) better experience than against an AI.
The disadvantage is that a person with two accounts can register on both sides, and there goes the FOW for one side.
I recommend running a single side (the rebels), but can live with players on both sides.
Lets assume we only have one side for now. What is in your opinion the best way to simulate battles? I was thinking of making a map like Stuckenschmidts' in the Vietnam game and let battles last several turns with several updates. I like his formula but making in way bigger so that each square, when filled, is a regiment of several hundred men and that several of these were controlled by players.
I'd really like it to be a combination political/military game since both congresses and battles played a major role in this time period.
Best way?
I have no idea.
One way to do it?
That I can help with.
Count the number of regiments on each side.
Roll a d6 for each one. On a ‘six’ result, score a hit on an enemy regiment.
Remove hit regiments from the battle.
If both sides have regiments remaining, return to first step. Else declare victory for the side remaining.
For each hit regiment roll a d6. On a result of ‘one’, remove it from the game.
Now, what do the players do to influence this battle?
They pick the tactic (one of the several available) used by their side, which when cross-referenced with their opponents,
yields a modifier to the die rolls. If you out think your opponent, then you can gain a combat advantage for your side.
Alternatively, you could just assign combat bonuses to characters (controlled by players) leading battles, enabling their mere
presence to aid their side in the fray without having to make any player choices.
This method is quick, lends itself well to battles of any size, and if a player drops out, just use their character as an AI placeholder.
No tactical map to draw, no waiting around for players to submit orders over several weeks to resolve one fight,
and the war can have multiple battles going on at the same time.
What is more, the conflict actually can get somewhere in a reasonable period.
These are my thoughts. Use, modify or discard at your pleasure.
If the game uses tactical maps with units moving about them to conduct one battle, a consideration is the amount of time used to resolve the fight.
The most recent dustup of Stuckenschmidts's took about nine real days to complete.
If the overall game scope is the entire U.S. theater, then I could see several battles going on at the same time.
Combat in the Northern, Central, and Southern regions, as well as amphibious operations or the follow-on battles along the coasts.
As for the politics, I suppose that that could encompass the economic and financial aspects of the war effort.
The political leaders could debate and allocate subsidies to various industrial fields, prioritize research (training and tactical advances),
and devote resources to convincing the Europeans to either get involved, or stay out, as desired.
Mind if I toss my two cents in.
I would agree that this does sound like it could be too complicated to fit in to a forum game. But it does sound marvellous.
I'd agree partly with bugwar... tactical wouldn't suit this game type at all, and would bog down the game. Personally, I think you need to drop the tactical battles idea and trumpet the political aspect more. Look at it this way - the battles are fast, they're visual spectacles, and they're bloody big. You will never emulate 18th century warfare on a forum, so I would suggest this instead; have multiple armies, have one commander for each of these armies. You can give them logistical/limited strategical command of their armies, give them a large map of the Thirteen Colonies and let them duke it out with the GM-controlled armies. The Vietnam game is best suited to its tactical style because that's the warfare - the game is all about the lieutenants and the platoons. But this one could be more about the politics/the actual war.
I like the idea of perhaps padding out the political fighting/Congress aspects of these sort of games. Give the legislation/politicans a lot more real visible power on diplomacy, warfare and all that. Of course, the biggest obstacle is commitment, and the scale of this idea would be hard to sustain...
I would agree that this does sound like it could be too complicated to fit in to a forum game. But it does sound marvellous.
I'd agree partly with bugwar... tactical wouldn't suit this game type at all, and would bog down the game. Personally, I think you need to drop the tactical battles idea and trumpet the political aspect more. Look at it this way - the battles are fast, they're visual spectacles, and they're bloody big. You will never emulate 18th century warfare on a forum, so I would suggest this instead; have multiple armies, have one commander for each of these armies. You can give them logistical/limited strategical command of their armies, give them a large map of the Thirteen Colonies and let them duke it out with the GM-controlled armies. The Vietnam game is best suited to its tactical style because that's the warfare - the game is all about the lieutenants and the platoons. But this one could be more about the politics/the actual war.
I like the idea of perhaps padding out the political fighting/Congress aspects of these sort of games. Give the legislation/politicans a lot more real visible power on diplomacy, warfare and all that. Of course, the biggest obstacle is commitment, and the scale of this idea would be hard to sustain...
Two more questions.
1. What are the victory conditions? How do you tell that your side has won/lost?
As the Americans, they won by just not losing for so long that the Brits got tired of the game and went on to other adventures.
So as the Americans, how do you lose? 'X' number of provinces/cities under British control?
2. What does Congress do in game terms?
Raise troops?
Provide Supplies for existing forces?
Set periodic war aims? (Free NJ of British military by summer)
Convince foreign powers to loan us more money to prosecute the war?
1. What are the victory conditions? How do you tell that your side has won/lost?
As the Americans, they won by just not losing for so long that the Brits got tired of the game and went on to other adventures.
So as the Americans, how do you lose? 'X' number of provinces/cities under British control?
2. What does Congress do in game terms?
Raise troops?
Provide Supplies for existing forces?
Set periodic war aims? (Free NJ of British military by summer)
Convince foreign powers to loan us more money to prosecute the war?
I have interest in joining such a game. If there is both a political and military aspect.