Game Integration

[Richard_H]

Have just been reading the previous thread (and thinking it's something I'd like to get involved with) and it's raised a question. Has anybody ever tried to integrate WinSPMBT with a more strategic game, so that one can also play the 'bigger picture'? Wherever you are in this great game, you are (nearly) always part of a larger force, whether it be a division, task force or even a massive invasion force, and I certainly want to metaphorically look up sometimes and ask "Hey, I wonder how the rest of the war's going?"

I doubt that any computer-based strategy game will get anywhere near the 92-nation scope of this one, but if anybody's found one or has tried anything on these lines, please let me know.

Thanks
Richard H

[Roman]

Hi Richard. Bridging the gap. The only games I know that integrated strategic and tactical aspects are Medieval Total war and Napoleon Total War. But the tactic is very basic.
Join the previous thread and see that we can invent.
Various heads think better.
There were war games that implemented the strategists (and still do) long before there were computers. Must be investigated as usual. We could implement this type of game at the strategic level and the outcome of battles with our loved game SP.

[Double_Deuce]

There have been several attempts over the years. The key is finding a game/system that handles the strategic part (mainly the ability to track the forces on the larger map) as well as getting players to take on the higher level command roles. Seems few people want to be "in charge" of any team when it comes to actually playing and even more are less interested in being in positions to be ordered around by those "leaders".

[Richard_H]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a multi-player environment, and I certainly understand folk's reluctance to "take orders" - bit too much like a work environment

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

@ Roman - will do!

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

I'm actually converting a campaign system for tabletop miniatures to handle this part. Seems to be coming along pretty well at least so far. Now I just need to put it into an actual document instead of a bunch of notes.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

I'm actually converting a campaign system for tabletop miniatures to handle this part. Seems to be coming along pretty well at least so far. Now I just need to put it into an actual document instead of a bunch of notes.

Double_Deuce is closer to get¡¡¡¡ Bravo¡¡¡

[RightDeve]

Really interesting, myself have been thinking about it too, but don't know how.
Especially if it comes to PBeM then there is one jury to rule both sides.

What Imp said is interesting; anyone has had any success with Panzer Campaigns / Modern Campaigns?

[Imp]

Originally Posted by RightDeve

Really interesting, myself have been thinking about it too, but don't know how.
Especially if it comes to PBeM then there is one jury to rule both sides.

What Imp said is interesting; anyone has had any success with Panzer Campaigns / Modern Campaigns?

Not hard vs a single PBEM player one person updates map units fight all battles & update, then do strategic moves & next round of combat only other piece of paper I had was a list in notepad saying which tank & AFV types were in which & a list of R&D points available each turn. Multi player though with a ref running would probably not work.
1) All battles need to be resolved before can do strategic move.
2) Each side needs a commander to do the strategic move & now the bit people wont like.
He also has to decide who gets support assign air & regional artilley to battles & allocate who gets what repair points.
People will gripe because the battles are not necessarily balanced you could have infantry defending vs an armoured formation with no arty/air or your badly mauled units from last go attacked again by fresh units so its wiped out. Thats the whole idea of the strategy bit try & get the advantage when you attack. Used a simple rule adjacent units could move to counter intercept an attack/enemy move if passed a role on D10 (dice) vs its scouting ability infantry vs mech or armoured had -3DRM.

[Richard_H]

Imp - TOAOW? Speak English please, Professor, you're talking to an old man here!

But yes, R & R points v important in the strategic world. Also stuff like oilfields, factory complexes etc. Bomb those out of existence & your opponent may have the shiniest kit in the world - and zilch with which to run it!

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

Imp - TOAOW? Speak English please, Professor, you're talking to an old man here!

But yes, R & R points v important in the strategic world. Also stuff like oilfields, factory complexes etc. Bomb those out of existence & your opponent may have the shiniest kit in the world - and zilch with which to run it!

That would be The Operational Art of War III PC Game. Advanced Tactics: Gold might also be good for that purpose to some extent but not sure how detailed into individual unit tracking it goes.