Gamers OCS: Opinions after a Tunisia CG

[Portal]

Just finished a Tunisia CG with my local FTF opponent in Calgary, which ended with my Allied resignation in late March 1943. The Germans pushed the Operation Torch elements all the way back to Algeria, and the 8th Army push through the Mareth Line had stalled with no relief in sight. The Axis had air superiority and logistics advantage at this point.

With this being my 3rd OCS CG effort, I'm starting to build some impressions of what I like and don't like with this system. I like the logistics management which force time and resource management for offensive operations. You just can't attack and run around the map at leisure. The straightforward combat systems support good flow of play. This system seems ideally targetted for 20-25 turn longer scenarios which give enough time for the logistics issues to become apparent yet don't require the players to go at it for real-world months on end.

However, IMO, the jury is still out for CG play (70+ turns) with this system. There is no real strategic purchasing of reinforcements. There is no break-up of scenario dates for a strategic phase, like an ASL CG. All units arrive either through a fixed reinforcement schedule, or through minor variable unit replacement involving random dice rolls. The 2 full CG designs (Tunisia and DAK2) I've played both seem to have reasonably lengthy dull portions where neither side has many options to advance the bigger picture until particular mandatory events happen.

I think I will cancel my Case Blue pre-order until it comes to market and word gets out that there are a bunch of good 20-25 turn scenario designs inside. The 2 x OCS products I've played so far have lesser-emphasized scenarios compared to their focus on the full CGs.

 

[AdrianE]

Portal

OCS is OPERATIONAL Combat Series. It does give you a good look at an OPERATION. It breaks down in the long campaign. I have posted that one should only play a 3 month period before the game breaks down. I agree with your analysis. One should not expect an OCS game to be valid over a series of operations. However that is what the long campaigns do.

Part of the problem is that there is too much supply and not enough replacements in the system. In OCS you can push your armies hard for months on end with no pause. This is especially prevalent with EatG and GB2. If you review the historical setups you can see that the replacements are clearly inadequate and the supply levels allow ahistorically high levels of activity.

Another issue is that Dean and company don't rigorously playtest the long campaigns. Several teams play the campaign intros several times. It is really a time issue. There just aren't enough playtesters available for long enough to do a proper job. The DAK2 supply issue and the original GB2 breakout rule issue are clear indicators that Gamers playtesting methods need improvement.

Yet another issue is that the Gamers don't playtest each and every scenario included. That became evident when Dean wrapped up playtesting for Case Blue before he finalized the scenarios. Review his posts on CSW.

However, OCS does work well over the long campaign in DAK/DAK2. Supply is very limited for both sides. It can be susceptible to diciness in the replacements (especially for the axis) and the Greek campaign permanent eliminations.

Adrian

 

[Portal]

Thanks for your opinion, Adrian. I've cancelled my pre-order, as I'm more interested in WWII tactical air and naval stuff outside of my ASL these days, anyways.

I'll be keen to hear what the grogs have to say once they've had their hands dirty with CB.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

However, IMO, the jury is still out for CG play (70+ turns) with this system. There is no real strategic purchasing of reinforcements. There is no break-up of scenario dates for a strategic phase, like an ASL CG. All units arrive either through a fixed reinforcement schedule, or through minor variable unit replacement involving random dice rolls. The 2 full CG designs (Tunisia and DAK2) I've played both seem to have reasonably lengthy dull portions where neither side has many options to advance the bigger picture until particular mandatory events happen.

It sounds as if you're trying to transmorgrify ASL CGs to OCS; disappointment is sure to ensue given the scale and time discrepancy between the two. Where ASL is much more extemporanneous, OCS is much more languid, which, given the scale, it should be. Those "lengthy dull portions" you mention are the equivilent to those ASL Refit Phases, even if of longer duration (don't forget there's an option within the system to pare down those periods of inactivity with both players' consent).

"Optional" reinforcements are a different beast with OCS due to the theatre representation; most of the available units are usually present in the countermix. Drawing from bordering off-map or national assets presents more of an issue; what would the shifting of those forces from an undepicted area of the front have by its being drawn into the area under play? How is that to be shown as regards the legendarily vague Gamers VCs? This doesn't mean there shouldn't be, perhaps, optional allocation of assets, but the truth of the matter is at this level, shifting forces between commands could have effects exceeding the impact that usage would bring.

Regarding a few of Adrian's comments, especially playtesting, I don't have so much of an issue with playtesting the opening of the larger campaigns over the whole campaign. Given the wild variables the player himself can inject into the progress of a larger campaign, assuring that the opening salvoes can prod the game into either historical-or balanced-directions is valid, especially given the lack of "Idiot Hitler" rules. Allowing the players to direct the campaign as they seem fit is one of the big draws of wargames, after all.

What I question is the seemingly small, if devoted, playtester pool. While many of them are certainly much more fluent in OCS than you or I, it leads to a sort of 'inbred' playtest, whereby a certain style of play by a certain group of players determines more dominantly the final product, which is more difficult for less experienced players-or just players with a different playing style altogether.

To me, OCS is more about the logistical sequences with the combat being more akin to an exclamation point at the end of the sentence, rather than the sentence itself.

YMMV...

 

[Portal]

Fez,

By making the ASL CG analogy, I wasn't trying to project or expect projections of the ASL game into OCS. I was referring to the lack of a Strategic Phase in an OCS CG, which would differentiate CG play from just another lengthy scenario. When comparing to other WWII games, the Production Phase in World in Flames would also be a fair analogy.

OCS CGs, for the moment, don't have any strategic phases which break up the motonony of game turn-in, game turn-out for 70+ turns. IMO, this is hampering the fun-factor for me.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I don't think OCS really rises to the level of strategic-level outside the players handling of the campaign itself. There's no production assets, for example, which I associate with a strategic level game. Certainly, some of the larger OCS offerings appear to be at the presumed scale for strategic -level decisions, but I've always assumed (and all that entails...) the actions depicted were a hash below strategic level, with the operation itself part of a larger strategic vision.

At any rate, I'm sorry to hear of your disappointment/disillusion with OCS; I think new blood is needed to inject new point-of-view to this system. Sometimes it appears the personal plaything of a select few players. Opening up the field to newer viewpoints may help breathe new vitality into the system.

 

[Portal]

Fez,

I'm definitely not entirely turned off from OCS. If a local player wanted to play a serious OCS scenario with his setup and stuff, I'd be keen to play. It's just that I'm not experiencing the overall satisfaction in order to invest my own resources to probe more deeply when there are other WWII gaming experiences proving more attractive to me at the moment.