Umm, let’s look at a few:
CBI: P40 doesn’t have flying over the hump, a difficult China/India, or guerilla forces in China
Med: E40 won’t have supply lines, more territories in N.Africa, or large navies in the Med
Eastern Front: E40 won’t have partisans, trucks, or oil
Atlantic: E40 won’t have convoys in the middle of the ocean, or the ability for the allies to scramble airThose are house rules, not a new game.
I think what CHL is trying to say is that the theatre scale games or global miss some defining characteristics that a new dedicated operational game could incorporate into the OOB rules.
#723
@Dylan:
Not necessary a whole East Front game, but battles within.
Right, Larry Harris is going to make games out of iconic battles and campaigns
In the Eastern Front?
I would really love to see a Eastern Front/Operation Barbarossa game. It could be Stalingrad, Kursk or whatever. It would have Germany, Soviet Union and perhaps a third player (Italy? Hungary/Romania/Finland/Bulgaria?). Yes, I think we should have two Axis players and one Allies, for a change. And no US or UK. How about that?
Did Bulge have the UK as a playable power?
Did Bulge have the UK as a playable power?
No but I think IL’s did.
It had British pieces though.
Umm, let’s look at a few:
CBI: P40 doesn’t have flying over the hump, a difficult China/India, or guerilla forces in China
Med: E40 won’t have supply lines, more territories in N.Africa, or large navies in the Med
Eastern Front: E40 won’t have partisans, trucks, or oil
Atlantic: E40 won’t have convoys in the middle of the ocean, or the ability for the allies to scramble airThose are house rules, not a new game.
I think what CHL is trying to say is that the theatre scale games or global miss some defining characteristics that a new dedicated operational game could incorporate into the OOB rules.
#723
How would any of these be operational scale? They all cover an entire front or mini-theater over the course of many years. If you want logistics and moving supplies around to be a factor like it is in AABOTB, then the next A&A should be a battle/campaign focused game.
But what if you want a mix of tactical warfare(logistics and supply) and strategic(using money)?
Well, since the operational level falls between the tactical (battle-fighting) and strategic (war-fighting) levels, it deals with the level of the campaign where a series of battles work synergistically to achieve higher goals in pursuit of strategic direction.
So in other words, it is mid-way between BOTB and AA50… which is where I think some of the listed options would fall.
#728
Well, since the operational level falls between the tactical (battle-fighting) and strategic (war-fighting) levels, it deals with the level of the campaign where a series of battles work synergistically to achieve higher goals in pursuit of strategic direction.
So in other words, it is mid-way between BOTB and AA50… which is where I think some of the listed options would fall.
#728
Thank’s for elaborating my point. It’s sort of like how AA50 is midway between the simple 1942 and the complex global 1940
Well, since the operational level falls between the tactical (battle-fighting) and strategic (war-fighting) levels, it deals with the level of the campaign where a series of battles work synergistically to achieve higher goals in pursuit of strategic direction.
So in other words, it is mid-way between BOTB and AA50… which is where I think some of the listed options would fall.
#728
But your talking about games that cover many years and many different campaigns, so where does the operational scale come in?
1942, AA50, and 1940 are all grand strategy games with pretty much the same rules. 1942 is the standard game, AA50 and AA1940 are the result of Larry Harris’s Advanced A&A project. The conflicts you suggest for the next A&A game would also fall under the catogory of grand strategy games because there going to cover multiple campaigns and encompass the econamies of entire nations. You pretty much asking for advanced A&A 1940. And Larry Harris has said that he will make official house rules for 1940. How about coming up with some house rules or playing AAE40 before you decide you need an even more detailed game.
Larry also makes the the campaign/battle oreinted A&A games of which i hope he makes more of.
Well, since the operational level falls between the tactical (battle-fighting) and strategic (war-fighting) levels, it deals with the level of the campaign where a series of battles work synergistically to achieve higher goals in pursuit of strategic direction.
So in other words, it is mid-way between BOTB and AA50… which is where I think some of the listed options would fall.
#728
But your talking about games that cover many years and many different campaigns, so where does the operational scale come in?
1942, AA50, and 1940 are all grand strategy games with pretty much the same rules. 1942 is the standard game, AA50 and AA1940 are the result of Larry Harris’s Advanced A&A project. The conflicts you suggest for the next A&A game would also fall under the catogory of grand strategy games because there going to cover multiple campaigns and encompass the econamies of entire nations.
I don’t think any of the theatres that CHL mentioned could be considered grand strategy… OK I guess from India’s standpoint, for example, CIB is as big as it needs to get. Likewise the Med from Malta’s standpoint etc.
But really each of those options are focusing on a single theatre albeit throughout the course of the war. Sounds Operational scale to me.
#730
Well, then i dont know what you mean by the word operational.
Generaly theater level games are considered grand strategy where your moving units and forces to general locations but not moving them around on or near the battlefield. Which is pretty much standard A&A.
i think AAG40 looks great and I am not going to get excited about the same game with a few house rules plus more territories.
I want more battle games(actual operational scale games) like market garden and stalingrad!
Generaly theater level games are considered grand strategy where your moving units and forces to general locations but not moving them around on or near the battlefield. Which is pretty much standard A&A.
hmmm I’ve never heard of WW2 theatres as grand strategy as that usually consists of an entire nation’s resources, goals and gets involved in the foreign policy and the politics of the nation. The highest level of war fighting.
The Operational Art of warfare usually occupies itself with addressing concerns of logistics, cooperation and synergy, and… well it is still a pretty vague term but generally you can whittle it down to how you fight a series of battles. So, zero economics or politics but still above the gun sights.
General Officer stuff but not Joint Chiefs and not LCols.
Anyway, I think we’re getting side-tracked from the original point being made my CHL: if the game is theatre-specific then the designers can layer on theatre-specific rules.
#732
Generaly theater level games are considered grand strategy where your moving units and forces to general locations but not moving them around on or near the battlefield. Which is pretty much standard A&A.
I want more battle games(actual operational scale games) like market garden and stalingrad!
These seem like contradictory statments to me. Stalingrad is a battle that lasted for several months and involved major forces in a theater that was huge, with battles that covered vast expanses with considerable economic backing. How is this any different from the grand srtatgey game you describe? Unless you talking about focusing on only the battle, confined to the city itself, but that wouldnt do it justice. Guadalcanal, for example, is a theater level game, it took place over several months (or maybe even a year) and involved major forces, and a considerable amount of economic resources.
I think a CBI or North African/Med. game would be in keeping with this trend just as much as a Stalingrad game would.
Anyway, I think we’re getting side-tracked from the original point being made my CHL: if the game is theatre-specific then the designers can layer on theatre-specific rules.
#732
whatever you want, I just am having trouble seeing how a A&A med would be all that different from AAE40. The historical med theater from 1940 to 1945 certainly involved politics and economics/production.
These seem like contradictory statments to me. Stalingrad is a battle that lasted for several months and involved major forces in a theater that was the huge with battles that covered vast expanses with considerable economic backing. How is this any different from the grand srtatgey game you describe? Unless you talking about focusing on only the battle, confined to the city itself, but that wouldnt do it justice. Guadalcanal, for example, is a theater level game, it took place over several months (or maybe even a year) and involved major forces, and a considerable amount of economic resources.
I think a CBI or North African/Med. game would be in keeping with this trend just as much as a Stalingrad game would.
good point, there is alot of ways you could do A&A stalingrad and depending on what the focus was you could call it operational or strategic.
both stalingrad and guadacanal were fought in under a year and guadacanal was a campaign in the south pacific sub-theater of the pacific theater. The med sea or CBI is a whole order of magnitude above campaigns like stalindgrad and gaudacanal. Just look at the time frame, number of contries involved and the area covered.
Burma was a sub-theater of the General Asiatic-Pacific war in the same way Guadalcanal was. The area covered was far smaller then the area covered during Stalingrad.
The CBI was a theater that had the lowest priority for supplies, men, and equipment for the allies. The fact that we won there had much more to do with the Allied leadership then anything else. Having men like Bill Slim and Joe Stillwell, and their ability to work with what they had, is why we beat the Japanese. Also, you could having varying set-ups. One for the Japanese invasion of Burma, and another for the allied retaking the country. Following the trend, having games with moving supplies and only having a limited amount of troops, with no economy to rebuild losses, CBI falls right in line. Also, for a CBI game, you’d have a real chance to have terrain play a mjor part. This would add another fun aspect to A&A games
Ok, Burma actauly sounds like a pretty good idea. I am not sure exactly what it would cover. You think it should cover the whole front from 1942-45? When I first saw people advicating for CBI I thaught they were talking about including all of china aswell!
Ok, Burma actauly sounds like a pretty good idea. I am not sure exactly what it would cover. You think it should cover the whole front from 1942-45? When I first saw people advicating for CBI I thaught they were talking about including all of china aswell!
Burma? Well you could do the Jap invasion of India, and counter attack into Burma.
@Dylan:
Ok, Burma actauly sounds like a pretty good idea. I am not sure exactly what it would cover. You think it should cover the whole front from 1942-45? When I first saw people advicating for CBI I thaught they were talking about including all of china aswell!
Burma? Well you could do the Jap invasion of India, and counter attack into Burma.
The Japs had no chance of winning the battles of Imphal and Kohima; they had fewer men and longer supply lines. Even if they won, I doubt they could’vr conquered India(or ‘liberated’ it according to INA)
