I'm actually really thinking about putting some ideas to paper and seeing what happens. I've been fiddling around with a euro game for some time, and I think I hit upon a novel way to prevent leader "break-outs." I've gotta put a prototype together one of these days and get folks to try it out.
One of these days.
And in the, "If that idiot can do it, so can I" files, the urge to design a wargame is really biting again. Mainly because I love wargaming so much, yet I think most games of this genre, well, aren't much fun. Over on Consimworld, I've asked on Ron Wuerth's blog what games folks would like to see that haven't been done.I answered my own question with a CDG of the Tet Offensive. 2 other answers were a multi-player CDG on the Crimean War (strategic scale, involving land grabs in Turkey), and the mid-1600s naval competition between England and Holland on a strategic scale. Any other good ideas out there? Preferably something you'd love to do research on, LOL!
Seriously, I have put out this "offer" before, on a game in the Eastern Theater in the ACW. That is still possible, but the research offers dried up, so I haven't moved ahead. Besides, the ACW seems to have been so overdone. Frankly, I think I have some real good ideas on how to implement card play into wargames (taking random events out of players' hands while encouraging play of "non-random" events). The problem I have is that I'm not real interested in undertaking all the order of battle research a game needs. Laziness plays a part, but lack of interest in this kind of detail work is the big reason.
I have watched Jason Matthews collaborate on 2 big hits -- Twilight Struggle and 1960: Making of a President -- and believe this is the way I should be headed.
Serious inquiries only. :-)
(Yes, time to do work for nothing, and if a game ever gets published, earn a few pesos! LOL!)
26 comments:
Rob, have you considered building a cdg "system", then putting it to a period?
What I'm thinking is designing all the movement, combat, and general card mechanics first; then using that as the framework upon which to apply the historical scenario.
One of the biggest things I find frustrating with CDG's is the way they do very similar things in just so slightly different ways. It would go a ways to be able to take your knowledge of how the "system" works from game to game.
What kind of research would you need?
I would like to see an alternate Napoleonics system. I don't love the Napoleonics Wars/Wellington/ Kutuzov system all that much. A game set in the early Italian period vs the Austrians would seem to have much to offer as a starting point.
Other thoughts:
WW I naval, probably area movement with raiders.
Personally I'd lean more towards Western theater Civil War. Eastern theater would be hard to replicate without giving Lee/AoNV very annoying god like powers.
Korean War would be interesting up to the point the 38th Parallel became a stalemate line.
*I'd* like to see a CC:E type examination of WW II naval battles, especially with the pre-war hypothetical "plans". Done right, that could be system that stretched back all the way to pre-dreds and the Spanish-American war. Still, I suspect that's not what you're looking for.
A lot of the ideas that come to mind are of changing the "scale" of the game. Seems like many of the CDG's are grand strategy types. I would think there is vast room for games set at the Corps/Army/ campaign level.
Not a bad idea to build the engine first, not just theoretically (as I've been doing). I may do just that.
Cool.
So, what kind of "research" would you need. I really have no idea what it takes to put a game together.
Whoa!
Grant you're a genious! You said:
"WW I naval, probably area movement with raiders."
How about any naval CDG game for any period? I mean most if not all CDG's are Land wars, or if they involve navies at all, they are abstracted into the system without detail. I think Mark Herman's design is obviously different, but I hadn't gotten to sample that.
What about turning a CDG on it's head where Naval Warfare is the detail, and if necessary abstract the land warfare?
As for research, that would depend on the game!
While a good naval CDG sounds intriguing, I don't think I'm the one to go that route, as my interest doesn't lie there!
Yeah, but generically, what is usually involved in such things? What would you need to know from someone else?
I'm looking forward to Rebel Raiders. Having finally been exposed to Combat Commander, I can see where you could use something along those lines for tactical naval combat (as opposed to grand strategic). Campaign level naval/invasion stuff would be interesting as well. WWII Pacific would be the obvious starting point, but Spanish American War would work too.
Here's a CDG for a war I've never seen a game for - The English Civil War 1642-1651 (not the War of the Roses 1458-1485).
This would make a good mix of military conflict (consim) with political machinations (ala twilight struggle).
Perhaps the best similar game example might be Triumph of Chaos, although I dont think it need be near as complex
I think you get a better game if you do the system after the period rather than before. Less pounding of square pegs into round holes...
"Here's a CDG for a war I've never seen a game for - The English Civil War 1642-1651 (not the War of the Roses 1458-1485)."
Unhappy King Charles? Due out in December from GMT....only covers 42-45 however....
Robin
Peter, do you really think that each period needs it's own system? I find it annoying in CDG's, especially as they seem to drift towards the same endpoints. They come in from different directions though, so they seem to end up doing the same things in just so slightly different ways. I find that it makes learning the games harder, as you have to try and remember "how does this one do interceptions?" all the time.
I think one could come up with a relatively solid engine, then layer the situation on top of that, changing anything that doesn't fit (never been a square peg/round hole guy myself!).
Research would be a terrain analysis (especially "funneling" of movements), battle/casualty list, and an order of battle.
For instance...
Assume one were to lay out a sequence of play for a CDG on the invasion of Sicily (Since I see the cover to S&T #89 as I type...).
Next steps would be making a map, doing an OOB, dissecting the battles and determining casualties (for a CRT), finding out about replacements, end determining what events took place that could be replicated.
Piece of cake!
My biggest problem is that I love "broad brush" history, and truly enjoy reading it, but don't enjoy the more detailed stuff (and really hate reading it!).
I always wondered why they didn't take the "UP FRONT", system and have a Old West gun fight going with cards.
French revolution/revolutionary wars CDG:
-two player, Revolution vs Royalist and foreign allies
-multiplayer, various revolutionary factions with automated royalist and foreign interventions impacting on the game in various ways (threatening the hold on power of the dominant faction; allowing certain kinds of actions by the faction in power, etc.)
-multiplayer, with revolutionary factions plus a royalist/counter- revolutionary/foreign player.
Robin
Hey Rob
Google lets me post. Hurray for me!
Mike
HOw about the Poland-Soviet war in 1920 (hopefully I'm not misremembering the year!)....a CDG of that might be very interesting....
Robin
Why stop at the Tet Offensive? How about something that covers the entire shebang 1946-1975+?
Start with the collapse of the Japanese, scramble for control of the cities, hold on for as long as possible as the French, bring the Americans in or at least pass the torch, etc, etc.
Players:
1. Vietminh/communist
2. Viet non communnist (start game in 1949?)
MP additions
3. France/US (Imperialist)
4. China (Communist)
Cox
Oh and I second the interest in the French Revolution, though I don't have the materials at hand like I do for the Ho Chi Minh game.
MC
That longer Vietnam game idea sounds fascinating, Mike.
Robin
I would stop at Tet, because I think that's manageable. A lot of direct military confrontation both in and out of cities and some excellent events events (to make up a deck of 50-100).
I think a 1946-75 Vietnam game would either have to be:
1. Like Britannia (and I hate Britannia!) or
2. Very simplistic, to keep things manageable or
3. Very detailed (let's call it "Triumph of Chaos of a few dozen doses of steroids!).
Not saying it couldn't be done, just that it would be tough. I think too many games lose focus, and this makes them into lesser games. A game on Tet, period, would be focused.
My reasoning, anyway.
Right. Not losing focus would be key. But you're the expert on CDG/Area movement.
Tet makes for a nice 1 turn intro in this one. ;^)
I was thinking more political than military in focus, though military would be a big component.
And I am not kidding, I have good oob sources for the entire 30 year span, maps for terrain analysis are readily available....
US-Vietnam been done (and I think there is one underway at GMT) France-Vietnam has been done (thinking Tonkin specifically), but the whole sweep of Vietnamese Independence has not. Focus on Viet vs Viet with the big players - China/France/US as MP slots...
Besides - Robin likes it.
MC
Indeed! Best reason I can think of for getting someone else to do all the work to design a game.....
I really don't go for post-WWII games, but this sounds like a killer idea to me.....
Robin
Man, make Winslow work a 5 day week, and no more posts!
Testing 1 2 3
Rob, a TET CDG would be great.
Post a Comment