Jump to content
The Political Lounge

War Game


vcczar

Recommended Posts

I didn't watch the whole video yet, but it looks promising. I am still waiting on a Civil War game that ticks all the boxes: has thousands of historical generals in it, gives you the possibility to fight non-historic battles that get named for the vicinities it was fought for, historic weapons, full details on your numbered regiments and brigades after each battle and a political component with Governors etc. Instead of having fancy graphics, I would also prefer to fight inch by inch for territory. I don't like gaining complete provinces or even worse hexagons after a battle. I am more on the dynamic map end and that probably the only thing I complain about, when it comes to the Total War series, which I consider the best available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I didn't watch the whole video yet, but it looks promising. I am still waiting on a Civil War game that ticks all the boxes: has thousands of historical generals in it, gives you the possibility to fight non-historic battles that get named for the vicinities it was fought for, historic weapons, full details on your numbered regiments and brigades after each battle and a political component with Governors etc. Instead of having fancy graphics, I would also prefer to fight inch by inch for territory. I don't like gaining complete provinces or even worse hexagons after a battle. I am more on the dynamic map end and that probably the only thing I complain about, when it comes to the Total War series, which I consider the best available.

That game exists. Grand Tactician. Austrian company too. Doesn’t have Govs though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, vcczar said:

That game exists. Grand Tactician. Austrian company too. Doesn’t have Govs though. 

Yeah I know that from your suggestion. Still haven't had the right amount of time to check it out, but it's definitely on my list.

Edit: After checking it out at Steam again, I remembered another reason that kept me from getting this game until now. It has a bunch of bad reviews, especially when compared to the Total War games.

Edited by ConservativeElector2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, vcczar said:

Write the creator here: https://www.general-staff.com

he will take PayPal and then give you a steam key when he has them. 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, themiddlepolitical said:

Thanks!

Ordered it- super excited to dive in, Said he should have keys out next week. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2023 at 12:29 PM, Willthescout7 said:

I’ll be honest, read the pages on the website and I’m still not quite sure what this game is or is supposed to be 

It's a realistic wargame simulator.

You play the role of the commanding general and you give orders. It's hyperrealistic in the sense that, you cannot control any of your units, you can only give orders. They may or may not follow your orders. There's also a fog of war, including for the HQ. So you may see this instance:

- It's 6am. You are on the high ground but the trees are blocking your vision of your corps on your army's right flank. You have to rely on the corps commander updating you. Alternatively, you move to the corps but then you lose sight of 2/3 of your army. So you stay put. 

- At 630am, the 2/3 of the army you can see, seem to be deflecting attacks well. At about 645, you receive a report from the corps commander you can't see, stating that the army may be attempting a flanking movement. You sent orders of how to deal with this, but because it takes 30 minutes for your messenger to get there, they won't have orders for 30 minutes, and the situation could change. If your leadership skill is really bad, it could take like an hour for the messenger to arrive, since the time is also based on how quickly a leader comes to a decision. For instance, at Antietam, Lee has like twice the leadership of McClellan, so Lee's orders take half as long to arrive to his commanders. 

The battles aren't linked. They're stand alone, so you can't play the entire civil war. Most of the battles or Napoleonic and Civil War, I think. 

I recommend watching the video of the game to really understand it. It's meant to be a realistic simulator by a professor who has made war games for the US military. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

It's a realistic wargame simulator.

You play the role of the commanding general and you give orders. It's hyperrealistic in the sense that, you cannot control any of your units, you can only give orders. They may or may not follow your orders. There's also a fog of war, including for the HQ. So you may see this instance:

- It's 6am. You are on the high ground but the trees are blocking your vision of your corps on your army's right flank. You have to rely on the corps commander updating you. Alternatively, you move to the corps but then you lose sight of 2/3 of your army. So you stay put. 

- At 630am, the 2/3 of the army you can see, seem to be deflecting attacks well. At about 645, you receive a report from the corps commander you can't see, stating that the army may be attempting a flanking movement. You sent orders of how to deal with this, but because it takes 30 minutes for your messenger to get there, they won't have orders for 30 minutes, and the situation could change. If your leadership skill is really bad, it could take like an hour for the messenger to arrive, since the time is also based on how quickly a leader comes to a decision. For instance, at Antietam, Lee has like twice the leadership of McClellan, so Lee's orders take half as long to arrive to his commanders. 

The battles aren't linked. They're stand alone, so you can't play the entire civil war. Most of the battles or Napoleonic and Civil War, I think. 

I recommend watching the video of the game to really understand it. It's meant to be a realistic simulator by a professor who has made war games for the US military. 

What excites me most about it is the editor aspect, I'm pretty sure you could simulate medieval and modern day conflicts by modifying different things.

Edited by themiddlepolitical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, themiddlepolitical said:

What excites me most about it is the editor aspect, I'm pretty sure you could simulate medieval and modern day conflicts by modifying different things.

I don't think modern would work. The architecture is exclusively built for linear warfare. No tanks, aircraft, etc. It uses lines of battle, muskets, cannon, cavalry. As such, it's basically 1618-1865  --- Thirty Years War through Civil War. 

You might be able to make a half-assed version of a medieval battle, but you'd have to set the fire power and range about to zero since it used firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't think modern would work. The architecture is exclusively built for linear warfare. No tanks, aircraft, etc. It uses lines of battle, muskets, cannon, cavalry. As such, it's basically 1618-1865  --- Thirty Years War through Civil War. 

You might be able to make a half-assed version of a medieval battle, but you'd have to set the fire power and range about to zero since it used firearms.

hmm okay I see, I guess it is limited in that sense then. 

Edited by themiddlepolitical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, themiddlepolitical said:

hmm okay I see, I guess it is limited in that sense then. 

so I also felt a little sad that something like this isn't turned into the modern warfare. BUT I founded this in one of the post from the game creator about the AI, MATE, 
image.png.aa9173943f1fe0c8f29c614cf03f0745.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Blockmon said:

so I also felt a little sad that something like this isn't turned into the modern warfare. BUT I founded this in one of the post from the game creator about the AI, MATE, 
image.png.aa9173943f1fe0c8f29c614cf03f0745.png

Oh okay awesome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/11/2023 at 8:53 PM, vcczar said:

That game exists. Grand Tactician. Austrian company too. Doesn’t have Govs though. 

Just watched the trailer for the upcoming DLC. Looks insanely badass. My background will be a pompous Frenchman who bullshitted his way into leading a confederate regiment.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

Just watched the trailer for the upcoming DLC. Looks insanely badass. My background will be a pompous Frenchman who bullshitted his way into leading a confederate regiment.

I'll probably make someone most similar to me and then I'll create an extremely reckless person who is prone to getting wounded. Apparently you can't die, so I just want to see if I can lose all of my limbs. 

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

General Staff can be purchased now. I was an early backer so I've been playing it. They're going to beta the actual simulator soon. Only the editor is playable right now. 

I've been creating a battle. One army is the Democratic Army and the other is the Republican Army. The generals are presidential nominees, candidates, VPs. I'm so busy that I'm only making slow progress, but I can't wait until I can try it out. 

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2023 at 1:10 PM, vcczar said:

General Staff can be purchased now. I was an early backer so I've been playing it. They're going to beta the actual simulator soon. Only the editor is playable right now. 

I've been creating a battle. One army is the Democratic Army and the other is the Republican Army. The generals are presidential nominees, candidates, VPs. I'm so busy that I'm only making slow progress, but I can't wait until I can try it out. 

Based. A play-by-play would be cool if you have the time. Are you doing it as rural vs urban, red states vs blue states, or North vs South?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

Based. Having Lincoln, Eisenhower and Teddy on the same team is OP though. 

This is basically the format I'm using:

  • Commanding generals are DNC and RNC (really player vs CPU or player vs player)
  • Infantry = the party's nominee
  • Cavalry = Any significant runner up candidates (i.e. Bernie Sanders) who didn't become Pres or VP
  • Artilley = VPs who don't quality as inf and cav
  • Supply = Notable Cabinet members that don't quality for the above.

The corps's are group according to era, and the most well-known president for that party is corps commander - Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Coolidge, Reagan, Trump vs Jackson, Cleveland, Wilson, FD Roosevelt, B Clinton. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is basically the format I'm using:

  • Commanding generals are DNC and RNC (really player vs CPU or player vs player)
  • Infantry = the party's nominee
  • Cavalry = Any significant runner up candidates (i.e. Bernie Sanders) who didn't become Pres or VP
  • Artilley = VPs who don't quality as inf and cav
  • Supply = Notable Cabinet members that don't quality for the above.

The corps's are group according to era, and the most well-known president for that party is corps commander - Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Coolidge, Reagan, Trump vs Jackson, Cleveland, Wilson, FD Roosevelt, B Clinton. 

 

What map do you plan on creating for it? DC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...