Suggestion for forum game

I would like to run a suggestion by the members: We have already had design games, but I thought it'd be interesting to have a strategic war game too.

What I was thinking, is to have a game master and two groups of members. These two groups of members will then play two high commands (SHEAF, OKH, Stavka, etc.), who will be presented with a scenario. Each group will have a map and a given set of units, and will then be given a situation.

The groups can then do what they consider best. They do not have to attack if they do not wish to do so, and they will have no final objectives. This will make the game different from almost any other strategic war game, in that the players are in full control, making the game completely unpredictable from the very beginning.

Each team will deliver their plans for the coming day to the game master, who will then compare the plans, and report back to the two groups the results of the day's combat. The teams can then decide what to do next. Thus, there won't be any line-of-sight problems, and other problems which usually arise from sharing a single map. This will allow for the most realistic situation from the view of the supreme commanders, and provide a realistic fog-of-war.

The exact rules should be quite easy to work out, since much of the information normally included can be left out (because of the scale, exact stats for each unit's equipment are irrelevant - strength and type of unit (infantry, armour, etc.) is all that is usually available to the supreme commander on a daily basis). The game master will determine the outcome of each battle, and will also be able to determine if some of the units are not able to report back, etc.

If you're interested, post a reply here, and I'll see if we can get enough people to make it interesting (I'd say a minimum of three persons per side would be required).

 

Nice idea!

I 'd like to participate!

However, there should be some default rules -- something that can keep the game within realistic limits...right?

 

Certainly. If we get enough interested, I'll write up a set of rules, which we can then discuss.

 

Sounds OK. I'll giv it a go.

Count me in please.

 

I'd like to join.

 

Sounds interesting.
Turning in plans on a daily basis might be a difficult for some though.
Every week or so might be easier on those with demanding jobs or similar.

 

Good point (though a week might be too long to ensure a proper flow in the game - maybe two or three days would be better).

 

I really enjoyed this kind of game the first time we tried it on the forum, almost four years ago, but it fizzled out after a few turns because progress was too slow. We didn't have a time limit for turns and everything was organized with Moonchild through email. I'd definitely like to try it again - looks like a lot more people are interested - but let's be sure that the rules are clear and the pace is kept up...

 

I've barely finished reading and I'm already planning basic manouvers.....count me in for sure!

 

By keeping each turn within a couple of days, it should be easy to keep people's interest, and by having a private forum for each team, group communication will also be easier.

If I see a few more hands, I'll make a rough draft for the rules.

 

So, its like that movie "wargames" lol

 

Proposed rules:

Teams
The players will be divided into two teams of equal size. One team will play the high command of the Axis, the other that of the Allies. Player requests for teams are welcome.


Location and date of the game
Player requests for a location and year are welcome, but the exact details will be determined by the game master, to prevent the game from being predictable.


Turns
Initially, each turn will be the equivilant of one month. This time can be used to prepare defences and offensives. As soon as one team launch their attack, the turns will be the equivilant of one day.
The orders of each side's high command must be given within 72 hours after the previous report from the front. If the orders are not received before the time limit expires, this will be regarded as a communications failure. As a result, if previous orders have not yet been completed, the troops in the field will attempt to complete those orders, regardless of the situation in the field. If there are no incomplete objectives, the troops will dig in and rest. The following turn, both the delayed orders and the new orders will be received by the troops, which may lead to confusion amongst some units, depending on the situation.
The number of turns will not be specified in advance. The game will run until one side concedes defeat.


Objectives
One or both team might be given an objective, but there may also be no initial objectives. If no objective is given, the high command must formulate their own objectives.


Units
The units will be handled at divisional level for land units and squadrons for air units. The units will be represented as the unit type (infantry, armour, etc.), with the strength given in percentages of the units authorised weapon strength. The equipment of the individual units is not described. It is assumed, that officers of the high command know the organisation and capabilities of their units.
At the beginning of the game, the high command will be informed of the units available, their location and the logistical capacity of the railroads and main roads of the area.


Orders
The high command can issue any order they wish, however, the result of unrealistic orders might result in insubordination, logistical chaos or other problems.


Combat
The game master will decide the outcome of battles, based on the strength and estimated fighting ability (training, experience and morale) of the units.


Intelligence
The game master might give some information about one teams troop concentrations and planned operations to the opposing team. This information may be fragmented or incorrect.


Reports
The game master will give a report after each turn, with information from each unit regarding encountered enemies, combat, casualties and kill claims. Each unit will write a report each day, but due to heavy combat or other factors, the reports from some units might be delayed or lost.


Winning
The winning team will mainly be decided based on which team was victorious, but overall performance and level of difficulty for each team will also be considered. For example, an Axis victory in Poland in 1939 will not automatically result in the Axis team winning the game. The winner will ultimately be decided by the game master.

 

I propose Kursk.

If you start early, neither side has a distinct advantage, while both control a large number of varied troops at the front line and behind. It gives much room for alternative objectives and ideas.

 

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to start with a smaller battle, a kind of tutorial, such as one of the battles in North Africa (where we could scale down the level to regiments - it shouldn't have any significant influence on the game itself).

 

That's a good idea. In that case, I propose Kursk after the tutorial.

Actually I think it might be difficult to find a big enough battle in North Africa to occupy three players on both sides. Do you have any suggestions?

 

First battle of El Alamein: Seven infantry divisions and three armoured divisions against eight infantry divisions and four armoured divisions.

Second battle of El Alamein: Nine infantry divisions and three armoured divisions against ten infantry divisions (including armoured infantry) and five armoured divisions.

Both battles would actually be big enough to play on a divisional level.

 

I like North Africa!

 

Looks good. When do we start.

(fear my Ewok and hobbit army muhahaha! )

 

Unless there are any comments to the above rules, I see no problems starting within a few days.

 

Right. Since there are no comments on the rules, we can start discussing the first round.

See http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewforum.php?f=29 for further discussion.