MDFeingold
Member
Hello all,
I am in the preliminary design/coding stages of a wargame roughly comparable to DA in subject matter and scope, although I intend it to be significantly more "hardcore" than DA (and that latter point is offered with a degree of humility, being that I am a mere armchair general and DA is the product of a military professional). Sadly, as DA is itself but a niche product in a niche market, I hold out little if any hope for the commercial prospects of my program. It is and will likely remain just a labor of love and a vehicle for personal intellectual fulfillment.
Anyway [wiping tear from eye], a fundamental intention of mine is to discard flawed board-wargaming conventions that have somehow survived into the computer-wargaming era, and to produce something that will interest military professionals and serious students of modern military operations (and probably ONLY those people). I have noticed that two of the regular contributors to this forum -- Curt Pangracs and James Sterrett (have I overlooked anyone?) -- are affiliated with CGSC and participate in discussions of the CGSC staff's wants and desires concerning PC-based "low-fidelity" simulations. I would be very interested to learn what features CSGC would want in such a program if they could design something from the ground up. To the extent any such disclosures are unclassified or not subject to any other restrictions, that is. (Yes, I've read the DA wishlist thread (and every other DA thread as well)! ).
Here's a brief, and undoubtedly incomplete, outline of my program goals:
-- focus on operations at the division and corps level (i.e., neither theater level, nor lower levels where direct-fire issues predominate).
-- WE-GO turn-based play, with baseline turns representing 1 hour (with a wrinkle added to represent OODA cycle effects).
-- units (in terms of the icons represented on the screen) will generally be portrayed at the battalion level, but will be composed of platoon/company-sized units to facilitate task-organizing and occasional detachment of units for independent missions.
-- maps will consist of imported .bmp files of real-world or user-created maps. Terrain is represented by coded grid-squares. I am considering resolution down to 250-meter cells, but because, as a general design parameter I would like to accommodate 500x500 KM mission areas, this may result in unacceptably large terrain files. 500- or 1,000-meter resolution is more likely. Additionally, terrain in each cell will consist of a number of "layers," separately depicting physiography, vegetation, urbanization, surface materials, elevation, and other factors. Unlike DA, terrain effects upon a unit are not determined solely by the single terrain cell at the center of the unit's "footprint," but by all of the terrain in the unit's battlespace (although this will vary to a certain extent as a function of the unit's formation and mission). Significant river and road networks and certain other terrain features will be represented using an arc and node method (rather than grid cells).
--In initial iterations of the design, attrition will be modeled on a highly-aggregated basis. My longer-term goal is to model attrition using a stylized system-on-system interaction similar to The Operational Art of War and other programs. Unlike DA, however, units will not abruptly halt when they bump into an enemy unit. An attacker's rate of advance when opposed will depend on the intensity of enemy opposition, terrain, weather, doctrine, commander personalities (see below), respective unit missions and other factors. Loss rates will increase the more that friendly and enemy unit battlespaces overlap. Light infantry units may be able to infiltrate through an enemy unit (albeit incurring a level of casualties), depending on terrain, enemy frontage/unit density, weather, special training and so on.
-- doctrinal differences will be modeled explicitly (that is, to the extent that real, practical differences can be identified. Most discussions of doctrinal distinctions between different armies are maddeningly non-specific, and rarely give the kind of brass-tacks information that a programmer/modeler needs). Ideally, I would like scenario designers to be able to specify the doctrine that each side employs, with selectable choices to include Active Defense, AirLand Battle, Force XXI, Soviet/Warsaw Pact, Krasnovian/OPFOR (to the extent it differs from Sov/WARPAC), Infantry-Based OPFOR (i.e., North Korean), and perhaps Auftragstaktik. This is a very challenging design goal, however, and ultimately may be modeled only weakly, if at all.
-- There will be a much greater emphasis on graphic control measures, as compared to DA. Things like phase lines, lateral boundaries, battle positions, axes of advance, direction of attack, coordinated fire lines, etc. will have functional effects in the game. For example, a unit crossing a phase line specified as a reporting line will send a SITREP. Fire across a unit lateral boundary would have a greater chance of fratricide. Crossing a phase line designated as a probable line of contact will cause a unit to deploy from tactical or approach march to battle formation. And so on.
--Friendly fog-of-war will be modeled, although the extent may be mitigated for playability reasons. Right now, however, I plan to incorporate an optional mode where the player does not have real-time information concerning the location and status of his units, which are represented on the map only by their last-reported location (see prior item about SITREP's at reporting lines). These effects will be reduced by incipient C2 technologies like Blue Force Tracking, Army Battle COmmand System, etc.
-- Unit commander personalities will be modeled -- traits like aggressiveness, risk-aversion, reliability, tactical acumen, etc. (Yeah, I know . . . professional military types aren't keen on "soft factors" but hey, JWARS has it. It's the wave of the future
But the bottom line is that units will be willful entities that will cannot always be counted upon to do what you want, when you want, or how you want it done. Sometimes they will display initiative to accomplish positive things that you didn't think to or didn't have time to order.
--Logistics: CLass III (fuel) and V (ammo) and engineer barrier material (can't recall the class offhand) will be explicitly modeled apart from other classes. Possibly, "push" versus "pull" logistical systems would be represented as well.
-- programmable "events" -- more extensive than is available in DA, but less than The Operational Art of War.
-- Solitaire, email and LAN-based play will be included. Eventually, I intend to enable multiple players per side.
Well, those are some of the basics. Needless to say, this is an immense project and, having a day job, I can't imagine producing even an alpha version in less than a year from now. I have done a significant amount of coding to date, but nothing worthy of a screen shot.
I apologize if this post is deemed overly off-topic, or in the wrong discussion group, but a number of posts in this forum by Messrs. Pangracs and Sterrett concerning CGSC views were of immense interest to me and I thought that this would be the best place to raise this. If anyone would prefer to communicate via email, I can be reached at XMarcSpott@aol.com.
Thanks,
Marc
I am in the preliminary design/coding stages of a wargame roughly comparable to DA in subject matter and scope, although I intend it to be significantly more "hardcore" than DA (and that latter point is offered with a degree of humility, being that I am a mere armchair general and DA is the product of a military professional). Sadly, as DA is itself but a niche product in a niche market, I hold out little if any hope for the commercial prospects of my program. It is and will likely remain just a labor of love and a vehicle for personal intellectual fulfillment.
Anyway [wiping tear from eye], a fundamental intention of mine is to discard flawed board-wargaming conventions that have somehow survived into the computer-wargaming era, and to produce something that will interest military professionals and serious students of modern military operations (and probably ONLY those people). I have noticed that two of the regular contributors to this forum -- Curt Pangracs and James Sterrett (have I overlooked anyone?) -- are affiliated with CGSC and participate in discussions of the CGSC staff's wants and desires concerning PC-based "low-fidelity" simulations. I would be very interested to learn what features CSGC would want in such a program if they could design something from the ground up. To the extent any such disclosures are unclassified or not subject to any other restrictions, that is. (Yes, I've read the DA wishlist thread (and every other DA thread as well)! ).
Here's a brief, and undoubtedly incomplete, outline of my program goals:
-- focus on operations at the division and corps level (i.e., neither theater level, nor lower levels where direct-fire issues predominate).
-- WE-GO turn-based play, with baseline turns representing 1 hour (with a wrinkle added to represent OODA cycle effects).
-- units (in terms of the icons represented on the screen) will generally be portrayed at the battalion level, but will be composed of platoon/company-sized units to facilitate task-organizing and occasional detachment of units for independent missions.
-- maps will consist of imported .bmp files of real-world or user-created maps. Terrain is represented by coded grid-squares. I am considering resolution down to 250-meter cells, but because, as a general design parameter I would like to accommodate 500x500 KM mission areas, this may result in unacceptably large terrain files. 500- or 1,000-meter resolution is more likely. Additionally, terrain in each cell will consist of a number of "layers," separately depicting physiography, vegetation, urbanization, surface materials, elevation, and other factors. Unlike DA, terrain effects upon a unit are not determined solely by the single terrain cell at the center of the unit's "footprint," but by all of the terrain in the unit's battlespace (although this will vary to a certain extent as a function of the unit's formation and mission). Significant river and road networks and certain other terrain features will be represented using an arc and node method (rather than grid cells).
--In initial iterations of the design, attrition will be modeled on a highly-aggregated basis. My longer-term goal is to model attrition using a stylized system-on-system interaction similar to The Operational Art of War and other programs. Unlike DA, however, units will not abruptly halt when they bump into an enemy unit. An attacker's rate of advance when opposed will depend on the intensity of enemy opposition, terrain, weather, doctrine, commander personalities (see below), respective unit missions and other factors. Loss rates will increase the more that friendly and enemy unit battlespaces overlap. Light infantry units may be able to infiltrate through an enemy unit (albeit incurring a level of casualties), depending on terrain, enemy frontage/unit density, weather, special training and so on.
-- doctrinal differences will be modeled explicitly (that is, to the extent that real, practical differences can be identified. Most discussions of doctrinal distinctions between different armies are maddeningly non-specific, and rarely give the kind of brass-tacks information that a programmer/modeler needs). Ideally, I would like scenario designers to be able to specify the doctrine that each side employs, with selectable choices to include Active Defense, AirLand Battle, Force XXI, Soviet/Warsaw Pact, Krasnovian/OPFOR (to the extent it differs from Sov/WARPAC), Infantry-Based OPFOR (i.e., North Korean), and perhaps Auftragstaktik. This is a very challenging design goal, however, and ultimately may be modeled only weakly, if at all.
-- There will be a much greater emphasis on graphic control measures, as compared to DA. Things like phase lines, lateral boundaries, battle positions, axes of advance, direction of attack, coordinated fire lines, etc. will have functional effects in the game. For example, a unit crossing a phase line specified as a reporting line will send a SITREP. Fire across a unit lateral boundary would have a greater chance of fratricide. Crossing a phase line designated as a probable line of contact will cause a unit to deploy from tactical or approach march to battle formation. And so on.
--Friendly fog-of-war will be modeled, although the extent may be mitigated for playability reasons. Right now, however, I plan to incorporate an optional mode where the player does not have real-time information concerning the location and status of his units, which are represented on the map only by their last-reported location (see prior item about SITREP's at reporting lines). These effects will be reduced by incipient C2 technologies like Blue Force Tracking, Army Battle COmmand System, etc.
-- Unit commander personalities will be modeled -- traits like aggressiveness, risk-aversion, reliability, tactical acumen, etc. (Yeah, I know . . . professional military types aren't keen on "soft factors" but hey, JWARS has it. It's the wave of the future
But the bottom line is that units will be willful entities that will cannot always be counted upon to do what you want, when you want, or how you want it done. Sometimes they will display initiative to accomplish positive things that you didn't think to or didn't have time to order.--Logistics: CLass III (fuel) and V (ammo) and engineer barrier material (can't recall the class offhand) will be explicitly modeled apart from other classes. Possibly, "push" versus "pull" logistical systems would be represented as well.
-- programmable "events" -- more extensive than is available in DA, but less than The Operational Art of War.
-- Solitaire, email and LAN-based play will be included. Eventually, I intend to enable multiple players per side.
Well, those are some of the basics. Needless to say, this is an immense project and, having a day job, I can't imagine producing even an alpha version in less than a year from now. I have done a significant amount of coding to date, but nothing worthy of a screen shot.
I apologize if this post is deemed overly off-topic, or in the wrong discussion group, but a number of posts in this forum by Messrs. Pangracs and Sterrett concerning CGSC views were of immense interest to me and I thought that this would be the best place to raise this. If anyone would prefer to communicate via email, I can be reached at XMarcSpott@aol.com.
Thanks,
Marc
