What do you want to be the next AA game?

[allboxcars]

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

[calvinhobbesliker]

@allboxcars:

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

[Emperor_Taiki]

@allboxcars:

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.

[allboxcars]

@Emperor_Taiki:

@allboxcars:

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

[Emperor_Taiki]

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!

[allboxcars]

@Emperor_Taiki:

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

[Clyde85]

@Emperor_Taiki:

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.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@allboxcars:

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.

@Clyde85:

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.

[Clyde85]

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

[Emperor_Taiki]

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!

[Dylan the Canadian]

@Emperor_Taiki:

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.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Dylan:

@Emperor_Taiki:

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)

[Dylan the Canadian]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@Emperor_Taiki:

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)

I thought Japan invaded India, but were pushed out into Burma where they also lost.

[calvinhobbesliker]

They did. Imphal and Kohima are in India.

Keep in mind that they weren’t pushed out of Burma until 1945, 1 year after the Indian invasion.

BTW, I like the memorial inscription at Kohima:

When you go home,
Tell of us and say:
For their tomorrow,
We gave our today

[Dylan the Canadian]

@calvinhobbesliker:

They did. Imphal and Kohima are in India.

Keep in mind that they weren’t pushed out of Burma until 1945, 1 year after the Indian invasion.

BTW, I like the memorial inscription at Kohima:

When you go home,
Tell of us and say:
For their tomorrow,
We gave our today

Why don’t you add that to your signature.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Good idea, but I have to decide which current quote to remove

[Clyde85]

@Emperor_Taiki:

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!

A CBI game would center on Burma, with the allies having positions on the Indian side of the border, the Japanese having positions on the Thai side of the border, with the abality to land troops near Rangoon, and the Chinese having positions on the Yunan side of the border, perhapse including the main city of Kunming. The country would be divided in to a number of tt, but you’d really need to concentrate on the 3 main rivers, the Irrawady the Salween and the Mekong rivers that divide it. Somehow you would need rules covering the difficulties crossing them, a movment limit or penelty maybe? You’d also have to factor in the high mountians in the north with similar rules.
You would probably have rules covering the Burma road, which would play a very central part. Different objectives for the allies, the Japanese and the Chinese, espically with reguards to what they need. The allies would be trying to stop the Japanese, and push them back, the Japanese would be trying to invade India, while the Chinese would just want their supply line open and to hell with the rest of it.
I think it would make for an intresting dynamic if China had its own objectives and was more independent. Granted they wouldnt have a huge attacking army, but they would or could play a important part.
Japan would want to cut the bruma road, and then use it to invade China’s yunan province and even try to use it to push into India.
The allies would be fighting to safeguard India, keep China supplied, and destroy Japanese forces in Burma.
So many colorful forces fought in Burma too. You had Ameircan GI’s next to German trained Chinese, Sikh warriors, Burmese head hunters and Gurkha’s. This was where Frank D. Merrills famous unit “Merrills Marauders” fought. Where the ecentric British commander Orde Windgate created the “Chindits”, the worlds first modern special forces. Tactics modern armies use today in long range insertion and extraction of troops were born here.
This is really just the tip of the iceberg too!

[Emperor_Taiki]

Ok, FMG’s air transport peices should come in handy here. I suppose supply rules would be similar to pass games with the addition of air supply, and the terrain limitations. What about aquireing new units, how would that be done?

Do you know of books on the subject you could recommend?

[Clyde85]

@Clyde85:

I would LOVE to see a CBI game, but im pretty sureim alone in that  :|
There was this great book called “The Burma Road” by Donovan Webster that covered that theater in depth, from the commanders, the troops, the terrain, the politics and the battles. Its a wonderful read and its not too long. I would love to see A&A games tackle this theater, with all its different and colorful elements, but I know most people would like to see it  :|

This is probably one of the best books on the subject I have ever read. Its not too long and it covers the whole war it great detail with out being too tideious. Check it out on Amazon

[allboxcars]

@Emperor_Taiki:

…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.

Well obviously if AAMed is going to take the form of AAE40 or AAP40 then it would be at a Grand Strategic scale… however I don’t think anyone is thinking Larry or WOTC will be producing another game of that scale any time soon but anticipating a game using the “Big Battle format” to be far more likely.

So to consider the ones CHL listed in a Big Battle format I think you’d be looking at something similar to what was done with Guadalcanal…

Guadalcanal I’d call operational owing to its supply and regroup mechanics. But I can’t see any grand strategy at that level.

On the other hand, D-Day - where things are more spoon-fed to you - seems to come across as more tactical than operational. More: You get what you get… now shuddup and fight.

(Mind you I confess I’m just looking over the books I don’t play either of those games)

#734