I wanted to comment on the various things about the HPS/JTS games that makes up the profile of most of us here.
I see basically four groups of players in the club:
1. Historical first, game second.
2. Lean towards history but love a good game too.
3. Lean towards game and history is secondary.
4. I am not picky - I prefer to use whatever the game allows no matter whether it is historical or not.
The H&R guys fall in the first group. I am a #2 guy. #3 is a rare group of folks here but it may exist. I have seen them in other clubs though and they are mainly "game players" with history being PART of the process. In other words they would not be interested in a heavily historical simulation that bogs them down.
The blitz crowd runs in #4. Why? Because IF they were really out for historical flavor they would not play like they do. They would be into House Rules that restrict their ability to run a player over in so many turns.
I find that #2 usually brings out the most in a PLAYER. And that is what most of us are here. When you get into #1 you end up with a ton of chrome and things that entangle the player and cause him to have to do a ton of things each turn that make no sense in the end because the end result was similar to what was achieved in the game anyway.
Example: #1 player usually invokes a ton of House Rules. #2 will use them but only when they do not make the game terribly cumbersome.
Ok - that much said now a list of customers types:
1. Micro Manager - wants to be able to position everything the way they like it. Does not trust the AI at all as a rule to do that for them. While this does not apply to our games as much they would never consider a "Command Control" game where they give orders via the Leader Dialog in the game (AI moves units) nor are they interested in playing in an Umpire Game where they submit orders and the Umpire moves their units for them. (not saying that this person does this because of the AI - saying that they are Micro Managers regardless)
2. Brigade Commander - this player likes to position his brigades correctly but really would prefer for a strong AI to handle the rest. Yes, they are concerned about things like forming square only when necessary but they see some of the AI things as "part of the historical process" meaning that the real guys made mental errors.
3. Corps Commander - would like to give the corps a command and watch the entire game unfold in that manner. Definitely a "Battle Mananger" and while they do care about the placement of troops and want a good AI they are more interested in getting the troops to a location and bringing the most to the table to overpower an opponent or to reinforce a key area at the crucial moment.
I tend to fit into #2. While I am not the micromanger type I also am not content to just give orders to a corps and watch the entire process unfold.
So what if you could have a game that allowed you to move units like the miniature rules "Napoleons Battles" by Avalon Hill (and now 3rd Ed. by Lost Battalion Games)? Is such a game possible. I am thinking it is.
What we could see is a game that is Operational in scope but that would allow for a series of battle maps to be used (40+). The designer would put together maps that are typical of an area while the programmer would have a operational level movement system for the divisions/brigades and allow for battles where the players resolve the issue using a turn based WE PLOT/WE GO system. The brigades would have set formations for you to use. Less concern would be on the actual positioning. The matchups would be more of interest. Flank attacks still possible but not from such a small level as the current format we play in.
Thus the unit would be the brigade or division. Basically a grouping from 3-10 battalions.
Ratings:
Size
Morale
Training
Weapon (for most of the infantry this would not matter - at this scale the difference between a rifle or a musket would be trivial but for cannon it would be matter)
The emphasis would be more on #2 - lean towards history but love a good game too.
This would not be a "Two 3-3 brigades " attacks a "4-3 brigade" - the brigades would have values and national characteristics.
This level would work for campaigns. A ground scale of 50 kms per operational hex and 600 meters per tactical game hex.
Food for thought and perhaps a good boardgame adaptation would also work as well.
_________________
Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz
3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps
Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie
NWC Founding Member
For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options
OFF:
MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)
NWC
Login
FAQ
