Slitherine

Ian / Johan,

I must admit that i am enjoying this game very much and am currently tinkering with the editor (which i dont find too bad to use) and i started to wonder - what do you plan to do next with the game engine?

I personally would love to see either a pacific ww2 campaign or a ww1 version.

Would love to hear your plans.

dave

No comment

WWI is the kiss of death.

Every game ever done on the subject has been boring as hell and outrageously clumsy/awkward/unwieldy.

Oddly enough, my first wargame ever (circa 1971) was Avalon Hill's 1914

iainmcneil wrote:No comment

I take it that means you have already decided, but the timeis not right to share this wonderous secret with the common foot soldier?

Would be nice to know what is the next project, because if its WW I, I will skip buying GoA and instead wait for the next Commander game

Pacific War will be nice ...currently the War in The Pacific by matrixgames is too complex for me

I imagine this engine would work well for the Arab-Israeli wars in the 50s and 70s, mobile battles with mixed forces.. or a theoretical battle between Warsaw Pact and NATO...wonder if it could work for the Civil War or Revolutionary Wars?

Guderian wrote:I imagine this engine would work well for the Arab-Israeli wars in the 50s and 70s, mobile battles with mixed forces.. or a theoretical battle between Warsaw Pact and NATO...wonder if it could work for the Civil War or Revolutionary Wars?

Not really.

Arab-Israeli wars took place on too small a scale, and were over with too quickly. That would call for an operational-scale engine, not the strategic-level CEAW engine.

Warsaw Pact/NATO again on too small a scale, and over with too swiftly. If the Warsaw Pact had invaded Western Europe, they would have either won or lost in 45 days, at most. See Sir John Hackett's excellent works on this subject.

The War between the States, possibly, but again, it all took place in a much smaller theatre. The Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia spent 3 years plus slugging it out in a very small area, and everything else was a sideshow. Also, the Confederacy never had any realistic hope of a military victory, only a political one.

The American Revolution, (or the American War of Independence, if you prefer), possibly. I honestly don't know enough about the purely military progress of the war to render a meaningful opinion.

why can't the map be on a different scale and/or the time periods shorter to simulate the conflict that is in question? I don't see that the engine is that inflexible.

Being mostly interested in russian front I am in the early stages of producing a larger scale map covering europe from the urals to france and finland to southern italy. the scale will be about 22 miles per hex which is the best you can do if you include the important bits of russia. It does give you over twice as many hexes to play on. i was thinking of 10 or 14 day turns.

Dave

davetheroad wrote:Being mostly interested in russian front I am in the early stages of producing a larger scale map covering europe from the urals to france and finland to southern italy. the scale will be about 22 miles per hex which is the best you can do if you include the important bits of russia. It does give you over twice as many hexes to play on. i was thinking of 10 or 14 day turns.

Dave

Speaking of Russia, I used to play an Avalon Hill board game called "Russian Campaign". I think this engine would be great for an adaptation of that game.

My inspiration was a remake of War in Russia. the 22 mile map will have about 47 hexes between Leningrad and Odessa which should give a more operational feel to the russian campaign. To start I am producing a sketch version of the map which the game editor can handle. Then a scenario can be constructed to identify any problems etc such as lend lease. no convoys so how do yoo deal with it.

thinks this is probably better in mods corner

dave

syagrius wrote:Would be nice to know what is the next project, because if its WW I, I will skip buying GoA and instead wait for the next Commander game

GoA is light years ahead of anything CEAW could do for WW1

davetheroad wrote:My inspiration was a remake of War in Russia. the 22 mile map will have about 47 hexes between Leningrad and Odessa which should give a more operational feel to the russian campaign. To start I am producing a sketch version of the map which the game editor can handle. Then a scenario can be constructed to identify any problems etc such as lend lease. no convoys so how do yoo deal with it.

thinks this is probably better in mods corner

dave

WIR is my favorite game for the PC out of 100s I have played but I am hoping that Ceaw will supplant it with coming patches and mods as well.

I really think that the game could be quite easily modified to make a WW I expansion (or another game), using the same map, adding technologies like trenches and poison gas etc... Other games have WW I mods (EU, HOI) so I guess for a Slitherine and Firepower it would not be too difficult. Even with the realease of GoA (which I think look bad graphically and seems too complex) WW I is too much overlooked.

What do you guys think of a WW I expansion?

syagrius wrote: What do you guys think of a WW I expansion?

any expansion would be nice but WWI is so static on the Western front at least that if the game was historical would it be fun to play? turn after turn of casualties with no movement would be dry...fluid mobile battles would probably be more entertaining

True that the western front was more static for a long period, but it was fluid in 1914 and again in 1918. In addition the eastern front and Middle-East fronts saw a lot of movement.

Still no comments about in which direction the Commander series will go

WW1 is "fluid" for 1914 and for the end of 1918, and for any time on the Eastern front.

however the CEAW system as implemented for CEAW would be complete nonsense - you have no heavy artillery, trenches are not all that flash, airpower would need a major revamp (the main effect in WW1 is recce - the major thrust of airpower for the whole war is protecting your own recce a/c and shooting down the enemy's - bombing and attack roles were only in their infancy and afterthoughts)

Also many developments in the war would not be well represented - IMO German "assault" training requirs differnt combat results...not just a higher tech level. Tanks and Gas are significant, but tanks don't deserve major units of their own - they need to be attached sort of like leaders. Gas probably needs to cause extra readiness loss.

the naval war is so utterly different - the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet simply cannot be represented properly with the naval system as it exists (I know I keep harping on about naval....)

Ovwerall I think WW1 does not lend itself to a "beer and pretzels" game system, which is what CEAW has tried to be.

Don't get your point Stalins_organ...
WW1 war was pretty much like WW2 without airpower and very few, late war tanks. In CEAW terms everything could work the same : sturmtruppen, better trenches, gas, etc would be new "techs", planes will just be out (in WW2 also they were extensively used as recon), and ships were just the same without CVs (indeed some WW2 ships were already existing in WW1 !).
At a corps level arty should never gets its own units, it has always been incorporated in regiments and batteries at corps or divisional level.
The very different outcomes came from the lower mobility and firepower of attacking units, unable to make decisive breakthroughs, along with outdated strategy and tactics. I'm pretty sure it can be done in CEAW by just tweaking numbers.