Skip to Content

New Wargame

15 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

I am developing a wargame, and I have finally hit a stumbling block. I have developed my mechanics, and I have the era (modern times), and everything else. My only problem is the number of countries to include. I know that there are some givens that should be included in a current day game, such as the US, the UK, China, Russia, Israel, and the 2 Koreas. However, how do I handle the other nations, such as Japan (a conflict in Asia would most likely affect them), Canada (I have to include them), Iran, Afghanistan, Australia, the other European nations, the Middle East, so on and so forth. I know I could make it a lot simpler by just lumpng nations in together as "alliances", but I also want to factor in the fact that there are a lot of countries that would be affected by a major war.

Here are some of the spcifics surrounding the game so far:

-Based in Eastern Europe/Asia (from the Balkans to the Pacific), and including the Americas.
-Reliance on current international OrBats for starting forces
-Political and diplomatic aspects will be incorporated
-Current geo-political situations will be incorporated

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Anonymous
New Wargame

Large numbers of countries is a tough nut to crack. Im very similar to you right now, I am making a game based on the years 1700 to 1930, and I have roughly 20 nations in the game, and I am trying to develop a way to control nations that arnt played by humans.

2 systems I developed were:

1. Let a dedicated player play all the minor or less important nations in the game, and make him get permission from more powerful nations to go to war against another nation, or something similar.

2. Develop a standard set of random events and rules for the playerless nations. In summary, I developed a series of dice rolls and spinners to determine what the nation would build, what they would sell etc... something like that usually seems to work.

I have really cut-down on a long, complex answer as I am quite busy. However, if you wish to contact me about this further, Im very happy to help, just email me :)

Cheers,

Tim

Anonymous
Re: New Wargame

First - are the countries to be included for their military/economic/politcal reasons or just to fill out the map? If the counties will play a crucial role in determining the victory conditions then you have to add them. If they are merely spaces to occupy then you coupld probably lump them together.

xayoz306 wrote:

Here are some of the spcifics surrounding the game so far:

-Based in Eastern Europe/Asia (from the Balkans to the Pacific), and including the Americas.
-Reliance on current international OrBats for starting forces
-Political and diplomatic aspects will be incorporated
-Current geo-political situations will be incorporated

Sounds like it's really based on the whole world except for Western Europe, Africa, and Austrailia/NZ. That's a lot of ground to cover. Without knowing more about your game I'd say you'd want to cut down on the scale. I know you want to include (you have to include) the US and Great Britain, but do you have to show their countries on the map? Can the US easily deploy forces to countries and be represented without having to show the US on the map? Same for other foces like Gr. Britain, France, Germany, NATO, etc.

How will you incorporate NATO and the UN into this game? The UN might seem ineffectual but they are deployed to many places. NATO has a strong presence in Afganistan right now. Will they be separate units, different from their parent countries?

Sounds like an ambitious game. With only one real "superpower" in the world today making a dynamic and interesting game that is based on real politics and situations seems daunting. Good Luck!

Just my two pence.
- Geoff

Anonymous
New Wargame

Quote:
First - are the countries to be included for their military/economic/politcal reasons or just to fill out the map? If the counties will play a crucial role in determining the victory conditions then you have to add them. If they are merely spaces to occupy then you coupld probably lump them together.

I do want to maintain certain nations due to the fact that they would play a role in a miltary conflict. The story would center around a renewal of conflict in the Korean Peninsula, and how that would affect things militarily and diplomatically. Would the "rogue" nations take advantage of this to step up and attack the US?

Quote:
Sounds like it's really based on the whole world except for Western Europe, Africa, and Austrailia/NZ. That's a lot of ground to cover. Without knowing more about your game I'd say you'd want to cut down on the scale. I know you want to include (you have to include) the US and Great Britain, but do you have to show their countries on the map? Can the US easily deploy forces to countries and be represented without having to show the US on the map?

It would be possible to utilize the US and not include them on the map, but then that would take away the possibility of attacks against the mainland US. As for the size of the map, I would be looking at something on the scale of World in Flames, by ADG. It is a large game as well. It was actually that game that inspired me to develop this one, mostly out of the fact that Word in Flames has a steep learning curve, and the fact that it would be neat to play something that isn't historically based.

Quote:
2 systems I developed were:

1. Let a dedicated player play all the minor or less important nations in the game, and make him get permission from more powerful nations to go to war against another nation, or something similar.

2. Develop a standard set of random events and rules for the playerless nations. In summary, I developed a series of dice rolls and spinners to determine what the nation would build, what they would sell etc... something like that usually seems to work.

Point 1 works. ADG introduced a similar measure with World in FLames, where the minor countries were controlled by the major powers that were aligned to them in real life. That system would work here, but the nations would be groupoed into different group. I would have the US, NATO, the UK, Israel, and South Korea in one grouping; China, North Korea and Russia in another, and the Middle East and "Rogue" nations in the third. I do suppose you could set it up thta each group has a "main power" and that any of the minor countries in eavch group, unless controlled by a player, would be used by that main power.

Point 2 could become a little difficult, as you would then have to incoporate a whole variety of factors that could make things more difficult than they really are.

I did manage to track down the Orders of Battle for the majority of the nations. It is a fair bit of information, but knowing what each country would be bringing to the table in real life does make it a bit easier oin the overall when trying to make two of the three groups balanced, with a third that would be a little behind. Frex: China has just as many troops as the United States, Britain, and Japan combined, and Israel, while being not as heavily populated, has more armored brigades than the US. It will be interesting incorporating all this into the game. I'll have an update for everyone soon.

Anonymous
New Wargame

Firstly.. Hello to everyone.

This is my first post and im a desiner newbie. Currently I am working on two modern militay games, that seem like they will never be finished.

To reply to the original post. If you want to get into that sort of depth with your game Id say you would have to include India and Pakistan. They have nukes!

Enough said...LOL

Anonymous
New Wargame

What andyprobs has said makes sense, include Indian and Pakistan, they have nuclear arsenals and besides China, they have have much military influence on Asia Minor and the Indian Subcontinent. I'd like to elaborate on other posts:

xayoz306 wrote:
Quote:
I am developing a wargame, and I have finally hit a stumbling block. I have developed my mechanics, and I have the era (modern times), and everything else. My only problem is the number of countries to include. I know that there are some givens that should be included in a current day game, such as the US, the UK, China, Russia, Israel, and the 2 Koreas. However, how do I handle the other nations, such as Japan (a conflict in Asia would most likely affect them), Canada (I have to include them), Iran, Afghanistan, Australia, the other European nations, the Middle East, so on and so forth. I know I could make it a lot simpler by just lumpng nations in together as "alliances", but I also want to factor in the fact that there are a lot of countries that would be affected by a major war.

Here are some of the spcifics surrounding the game so far:

-Based in Eastern Europe/Asia (from the Balkans to the Pacific), and including the Americas.
-Reliance on current international OrBats for starting forces
-Political and diplomatic aspects will be incorporated
-Current geo-political situations will be incorporated

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Hey again,

I have already replied by stating my 2 mechanics to control minor nations but I thought I could expand on this. You said that you would include the US, UK, Russia, China, 2 Koreas and Israel as major nations but here are some mroe you could include, which will belong to alliances, along easy control by an alliance leader (like Axis and Allies where any Allied player an control the rest in the event of a lack of players)

Countries you should add as "majors":

Australia: We have a population 4 times larger than Israel and we dominate the SE Asia region. We have been firm Allies of the US and UK.

Canada: Close alliance with US, democratic Commonwealth nation

India: Nuclear power, mentioned by andyprobs

Pakistan: Nuclear power, mentioned by andyprobs

2 possible alliances, they could be this:

Coalition of the Willing (or similar): US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Israel, Japan, (Russia?)

2nd Alliance (the major one): China, North Korea, (Russia?)

India and Pakistan could be anywhere... I dont really follow their politics

This creates a scenario where the game could be played by 2 players... with the minors such as Iran, Afghanistan etc... "controlled" by on of the major alliances (Iran - 2nd Alliance, Afghanistan (under US admin)

Cheers,

Tim

Anonymous
New Wargame

Quote:
Countries you should add as "majors":

Australia: We have a population 4 times larger than Israel and we dominate the SE Asia region. We have been firm Allies of the US and UK.

Canada: Close alliance with US, democratic Commonwealth nation

India: Nuclear power, mentioned by andyprobs

Pakistan: Nuclear power, mentioned by andyprobs

2 possible alliances, they could be this:

Coalition of the Willing (or similar): US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Israel, Japan, (Russia?)

2nd Alliance (the major one): China, North Korea, (Russia?)

India and Pakistan could be anywhere... I dont really follow their politics

This creates a scenario where the game could be played by 2 players... with the minors such as Iran, Afghanistan etc... "controlled" by on of the major alliances (Iran - 2nd Alliance, Afghanistan (under US admin)

This works. However, the inclusion of Canada would be a minor one. I live there, and our military is fairly small. I was thinking of Australia, but the obstacle I ran into there was finding out what Australia's Order of Battle would be in a military conflict. I would rely on Jane's, but I can't afford the $1300 US they are asking for the book "The World's Militaries"

I have determined that my major countries will be grouped into aliances, to make it easy for play with as few as two to as many as 8 players. The number of players will also determine what the scanrio is for each game. The alliance groupings will be:

1. the US, Israel, Australia, Canada, the UK, South Korea, Japan. The militaries of Canada, South Korea, and Japan aren;t that large, and in game terms, will be balanced. As an aside, I won't be utilizing everything that the UK, Canada, or the US has. Instead, I will be using the forces that are available in that particular theatre for each country.

2. China, North Korea, Russia. It will be an alternate timeline, with the return of a strong Communist presence in Russia that has aligned itself with these nations. These three countries alone, based on the information I have gathered from websites such as globalsecurity.org, have a military presence strong enough to handfle the combined forces of Alliance number 1.

3. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states that are run by governments that are hostile to the US and it's allies. These countries, while not as strong militarily, will also be joined in this alliance by a group that wil just be called Terrorists in general. They will be strictly Infatry units, or may even be designated as Special Forces. In any case, they wil help to settle the balance.

In a game involving three or more players, the scenario can include all three alliances, and would also include a map of North America to allow for the possibility of a homeland invasion. The emphasis of the game wil revolve more on land and air combat. There will also be an element of political/diplomatic intrigue included, both within the individual alliances, adn with the other alliances. This includes factors such as signing a separate peace with one nation, or trading resources and/or units within your alliance. It may seem like it is a bit to swallow through the descirption typed here, but I have started the mechanics for the game, and it appears it will work. Feel free to e-mail if you would like more details. I will keep everyone here abreast of the progress as well.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
New Wargame

Have you spent any time over that the Wargamer's Forums (http://www.wargamer.com/forums/)? Lots of folks there who like to talk OOB's and other such details. (Though they might not be as good about game design as this site! ;)) Figure between the two forums, a wargame designer should get a lot of good stuff to work with.

-Bryk

Anonymous
New Wargame

Australia and Canada are fairly equal in military strenght from general knowledge (around 55,000 - 60,000 combined personnel each?) so Canada would be equal to Australia in any modern conflict, and also we are allies by Commonwealth and the 2 leading British dominions. I'm uncertain of Australia's order of battle but I know that our current force in Iraq is around 2000 army, airforce and naval personnel. The land forces are our SAS special forces only (we rarely use our regular infantry for some reason) and our naval force in the gulf is 2 ANZAC class frigates and 1 Guided Missile Frigate. Airforce Im uncertain of although I know it contains at least 4 F-111 and F-15 fighter jets. So I guess all I can say is our order or battle is similar to the US and UK... 3 force deployment under a HQ...not much more to add really.

You've inspired me to change my game (basic manual two thirds complete, map drawn and coloured - looks awesome but hasnt been divided up yet thankfully :-D) from a Colonial/Victorian one to a Modern one. I was toying with WWII/Cold War/Modern previously and Im starting to think of that again... :-p

My current game as it is is fairly complex but it includes a large industrial/technological research element as well as military. I was wondering what sort of mechanics you have existing in your game? I could easily change the units and industries to modern ones, I havnt written my technologies yet so Ive got some room to think. However, In a modern, full map game I would have these alliances:

1. US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Israel

2. China, North Korea, Russia

3. Middle East combined

I still cant think of how to fit India and Pakistan in... also have you though of Spain, Germany, France and some other fairly influencial European nations? they would have to be incorperated somehow... Germany and France have larger military forces than the UK.

I'll keep throwing ideas in and try to help you formulate whatever you need.

Cheers,

Tim

Anonymous
New Wargame

Do not confuse military strength with professionaly trained soldiers!

No two armies with equal numbers of soldiers are equal. Many lesser trained armies bolster their forces with numbers to compensate for poorly trained and equiped soldiers.

Anonymous
New Wargame

Quote:
My current game as it is is fairly complex but it includes a large industrial/technological research element as well as military. I was wondering what sort of mechanics you have existing in your game? I could easily change the units and industries to modern ones, I havnt written my technologies yet so Ive got some room to think. However, In a modern, full map game I would have these alliances:

1. US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Israel

2. China, North Korea, Russia

3. Middle East combined

I still cant think of how to fit India and Pakistan in... also have you though of Spain, Germany, France and some other fairly influencial European nations? they would have to be incorperated somehow... Germany and France have larger military forces than the UK.

That does match what I have fairly closely. India and Pakistan are proving to be difficult to throw in the mix, as they aren't closely related to any of the other nations per se.

I am reluctant to include the European Union, mostly because that could create an unbalanced system. As well, my maps would only be based from the Middle East through Asia, across the Pacific, to the Americas.

The machanics are coming along nicley. I will be incorporating a variety of units for everyone, including Infantry, Armor, Fighters, Bombers, Attack Planes, Helicopters, Transports, and so on. The stats for each country will be based on the actual specifics of the individual unit type. For Example, when comparing armor, the majority of NATO nations use tanks with a main gun that fires 120 mm rounds. China uses 125 mm, and some countries use ones as small as 85 mm. By taking the whole of them, and averaging them out, I determined that 100mm is the middle ground, therefore, 100mm size turrets on a tank would constitute a combat factor of 4 on a d6. The 120mm range is the next highest one, so it would be a 5, and 125mm would be a 6.

I am thinking of making the combat dice for armor to be d10, as opposed to d6, that way it could be used to mirror the obvious attack difference.

The mechanics are actually one of the easier parts of the game. I have determined how to figure initiative per turn, how movement and such will be regulated, so on and so forth. Since I am at work, and didn't bring my notes with me like I normally do, I fill everyone in on the specifics when I get a chance. And StormRaptor, feel free to drop me an e-mail whenever to talk shop.

Anonymous
New Wargame

I agree on India/Pakistan... problem there. I was thinking that perhaps you could include the whol world map and make all non-playable (neutral) nations simply have some sort of "resistance" value to invasion? Say if the UK wanted to invade Morocco, that is neutral, they would have to "fight" some sort of set resistance value for the nation... just an idea to encorperate the entire globe. I was thinking perhaps your could lump minor nations together, for convienience. For example, take the dominant nation for a region... Egyptian North Africa or Brazilian-Argentine South America... Empire of the Congo and Southern Africa (excluding South Africa) or something like that. Perhaps India and Pakistan can have "resistance" values as well as some other rule that governs their nuclear capability if they are provoked?

For military units... In the event of my own modern game, I would create a complex system of units...complex being the key word...simple fighting units dont really cut it anymore for me.

Infantry
Marines
Paratroopers
Armour (tanks)
Mechanized Infantry
Artillery

Fighter squadron
Bomber squadron
Transport plane
Helicopter gunships (and other various helicopter units)
Naval fighters*
Naval bombers*

Cruisers
Frigates
Submarines
Ballistic Missile Submarine
Transport
Aircraft Carrier (carries * units)

Just some unit ideas... perhaps armour and artillery could be attachments to infantry units instead of stand alone units?

I have to be off right now but I hope these ideas I threw down help in some way

Cheers,

StormRaptor :D

Anonymous
New Wargame

Quote:
Naval fighters*
Naval bombers*

Cruisers
Frigates
Submarines
Ballistic Missile Submarine
Transport
Aircraft Carrier (carries * units)

These are great ideas for naval unit to incorporate, but how do you factor that into the game. It could create an unbalanced game. How many navies these days have powerful fleets? The US could win a war vs China if they neutralize the sea. You would have to write into the game mechanics some sort of balance, which could upset the realism

For the mechanics of making the game global, perhaps split the world into major alliances, without using NATO. Frex: Canada, and the US; the UK, Australia, and New Zealand; the EU; Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, and Thailand; China, Russia and North Korea; Middle East/North Africa. For the most part, the majority of Central Africa wouldn't really be able to muster that much of a fighting force that would participate in a world wide conflict. And, by splitting it into factions such as these, with only certain countries being played in each world region (France, Germany, Spain, and other major EU countries would have units included in EU forces, but smaller ones like Switzerland wouldn't) would the give the minor countries that would have notional resistance values, but have available to those who conquer them valuable resources and GDP that could contrivbute to the overall spending power of the nation.

The downside of this, with the scale of map that I would want to use, would make everything very large scale, as the map that I want to use has 0.75" hexes, each hex representing 100 km. Of course, witrh that scale, I could cut down on the sizes of the oceans by incorporating a variation of the sea-box concept that was implemented by ADG in the World In Flames series.

That's about all for now. I'll be giving everyone a sneak preview at the rough mechznics and breakdown of what I have by the weeknd through my journal. Stay tuned.

Anonymous
New Wargame

Ok, ok, let me get this straight. You are designing a game set in the present that takes place over the whole globe (or large parts of it), in which all nations (or, as you have suggested, groups of nations) are in a free-for-all war of global domination. The military power and economic might under each Alliance's domain can be used at the discretion of its leader to maximize their conquest. It is to be realistic (with real-world militaries and economies in play) and, somehow, balanced.

Last man standing wins the pie?

Well, this is an amazing undertaking, it would be an incredible game! I look forward to watching it's progress!

Anonymous
New Wargame

Quote:
These are great ideas for naval unit to incorporate, but how do you factor that into the game. It could create an unbalanced game. How many navies these days have powerful fleets? The US could win a war vs China if they neutralize the sea. You would have to write into the game mechanics some sort of balance, which could upset the realism

There are several large and tactically useful fleets in the world, the US has a huge Pacific and Atlantic fleet, consisting of some 100 major combat vessels each (includes surface warships and submarines)... you can transport troops and light vehicles by plane but larger deployments may need amphibious transports. Also aircraft carrier provide air support (as they are today) and larger surface warships can shore bombard in support of amphibious landings (recent landing example, Falklands War).

I agree the US Navy (even possibly the UK) could dominate the world with their fleet, but arnt you trying to recreate the world situation today? Of course the US would destroy a Chinese fleet in reality if they could...but that leaves the Chinese player with a challenging, and often fun situation. The Chinese have a capable airforce, and as depicted in the James Bond (bad example I know) movie "Tomorrow Never Dies". In the movie, Great Britain and China are on the verge of war. Britain could overrun the badly equipped Chinese fleet but the Chinese Airforce would prevent a severe problem as many ships are vulnerable to air attack. Also this is where aircraft carriers could create interesting conflicts.

Splitting the world into major alliances would work and would make a global war on all fronts...very fun. I like that you have considered my idea of nation lumping and resistance values... but you could easily create your own, more effective system (hoping to use mine in my game as I have the whole world mapped :-p)...anyway, Im really looking forward to what you have done so far, it sounds very good! :-D

Cheers,

Tim

Anonymous
New Wargame

GameMonkey wrote:
Ok, ok, let me get this straight. You are designing a game set in the present that takes place over the whole globe (or large parts of it), in which all nations (or, as you have suggested, groups of nations) are in a free-for-all war of global domination. The military power and economic might under each Alliance's domain can be used at the discretion of its leader to maximize their conquest. It is to be realistic (with real-world militaries and economies in play) and, somehow, balanced.

Last man standing wins the pie?

Well, this is an amazing undertaking, it would be an incredible game! I look forward to watching it's progress!

Sounds like fun, eh?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut