Which Current Games Portray It Best?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chuck Sutherland on November 21, 2008 at 10:31am

I would say any system that allows combat during movement to open up holes would apply here. PGG and that series, Civil War Brigade Series believe it or not would apply as combat can take place during movement and there are major command control issues with that game. The rules set I am developing for War in the East/ War in Europe that converts the overrun rule to allow combat during movement instead also fits that format.

Also I would consider any system that correctly models Napoleon's flank envelopment as to fit into this mold, while not what some would consider to fit this mold, I see it as a logistics driven battle system designed to force the opponent into combat when and where they were not ready to do so.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wilhammer on November 21, 2008 at 11:43am

Maneuver Warfare depends a lot on something missing from many wargames - hidden movement.

Nappy moved columns in support mode - on time, together, so as to not be defeated in detail, knowing full well that the unknown due to lack of a god like view would present threats and opportunity.

Compare this to those he fought for speed, in poor co-ordination, being defeated in detail.

Now, having command systems that include rules writing and reception and initiative, or lack of, helps.

In its basics, Maneuver Warfare is about flexibility of command and movement structures in dealing with the unknown. with a goal of disrupting the enemy plans and forcing mistakes that you take advantage of.

----------------

Three new games (for me) offer some good Nappy maneuver options, both with Hidden Units and Orders, but also chaos brought in with Card Assistance for one of them.

They are OSG's Four Lost Battles, Seven Days of 1809, and Habit of Victory.

Funny, Chuck, Current Games are being looked for, and You offer a title from 1974 and another from 1976!

Current Game that i think odes maneuver warfare well at an Operational/Strategic Level - Clash of Monarchs.

I got a lot of joy out of manuevering small active forces around to twist up the supply lines of large forces trying to squish fortresses and secure victories.

My Austrians twisted the Prussians up good - The Prussian player focusing on Big Damn Armies, while my small forces flirted with his edges, making his advance confabulated, messy, behind schedule, and ultimately hurtful due to a late siege failing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chuck Sutherland on November 21, 2008 at 3:37pm

Actually the optional rule in CWBS that allowed you to generate movement points and not use them to suddenly show up on the flank after your line of march was compromised or the table released you, then your corps could move several turns of movement in a row. But I agree having God vision does limit things, that is why the command system help much in that game.

Well all the games are still new to me, I have a short memory LOL!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Allen on November 21, 2008 at 12:40pm

I really like the idea of adding an additional dimension to games to reflect the commanders' decisions at higher levels. For example, even if I am playing a toe-to-toe tactical game, I'd still like the option to influence the tactical situation by choosing to spend some of my "resources" at an operational level. For example, perhaps I pick an option that gives me a chance to knock out a supply line with a raid conducted before the start of the tactical game. That might cost me, say, a platoon of light infantry that I don't get to use on the board. I make a die roll, perhaps adjusted by the size and quality of the forces I diverted, and other factors (weather, air support, etc.), to see if the raid is successful. If it is, the effect on the opponent's forces in the game might be that they fight with low ammo or fuel status, however that is implemented in the game rules. That's just an example. I think having a dozen or so options like that to pre-condition the status of the opponent's forces (or to prevent him from doing something to you...e.g. adding extra rear area guard) would really enhance the playability of some otherwise "rock 'em sock 'em robot" tactical games.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wilhammer on November 21, 2008 at 12:43pm

You would like Conflict of Heroes for that dynamic.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Walters on November 22, 2008 at 10:46am

I will make the following recommendations with a heavy caveat--according to the definition of Maneuver Warfare that I tend to favor (the German School, which is what John Boyd and Bill Lind argue is what MW is all about), I look for designs that show the benefits of higher OODA loop functioning, usually gained through decentralization of command and control (at least in the late 19th and all through the 20th centuries). In that vein, I offer the following:

#1: Tactical Combat System (TCS) games by The Gamers/MMPO--biggest OODA loop differences are perhaps shown best in GD '40 (The Battle of Stonne, 1940) and in BLACK WEDNESDAY (The Spanish Blue Division at Krasnyy Bor on the Leningrad Front), although GD '41 does a good job too--it's just not as exciting being the Soviet player in that game. I like all the games in the series.

#2: Victory Games' PANZER COMMAND (Chir River battles, 1942) and MMP's new DEVIL'S CAULDRON (Arnhem/Nijmegen)

#3: GDW's ASSAULT series of modern tactical armor combat in the Cold War and Omega Games' MAIN BATTLE AREA and DESERT VICTORY.

Regarding illustrating the advantages of better OODA Loop functioning as a whole, whether or not decentralization is involved or not, there are a number of additional designs:

#4: Civil War Brigade Series and Napoleonic War Brigade Series by The Gamers/MMP. These games do better than most on giving the player the illusion of control through the orders rules/process and yet the actions create some very bizarre situations that we so often read about in our history books. I'm a huge fan of these systems.

#5: Kevin Zucker's OSG games on Napoleonic Campaigning--the latest being THE HABIT OF VICTORY (1807) and NAPOLEON AT THE CROSSROADS (1813). I'm still trying to digest the end of this game company--it's really that much of a blow to me.

If I go with the Wyly and Robert Leonhard characterizations of MW being purely about achieving speed and focus, then the lens is far wider and I don't think I can offer much there as so much then becomes a matter of individual taste. I go for games that offer limited intelligence in such circumstances--often the block games.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Smitty on November 22, 2008 at 10:57am

Desert Victory seems t o have a good sense of it now, doesn't it?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Walters on November 22, 2008 at 12:31pm

Oh it does, I just wish the graphical treatment of both it and AIR LAND BATTLE, it's sister game on tactical armored combat in Cold War West Germany, would have been a lot better than it was. Still, these were incredible games and perfect for training platoon and company leaders to think like Battalion Task Force commanders--and coming up with a good, flexible plan is half the challenge.

You'll note my list is overwhelmingly focused on the tactical level. I don't show any operational level games because--other than the OSG games--we don't see such an explicit treatment of OODA functioning there. The closest is perhaps those titles of GMT's EASTERN FRONT SERIES that feature HQ activation (but once they're all activated, a great deal of this is lost) and The Gamers'/MMP OPERATIONAL COMBAT SERIES (OCS), but I'd argue the latter doesn't do it as well as the old John Schlettler WINTER STORM series games that had the optional command rules (notably PRELUDE TO DISASTER, THE LAST VICTORY, and EIDELWEISS). If I could, I'd retrofit those onto OCS CASE BLUE. Behind that I'd list West End's AIR AND ARMOR.

But none of these make OODA functioning the centerpiece of the design like the OSG operational-level titles do. And the tactical games I've listed certainly do.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2