 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
 Good stuff there Leonidas. Looks like Shadow President is worth a look.
Haven't started a new Korean War game yet. What little time I had this weekend went to trying to finish a Civ ToT game I currently have going. Rest assured though the North Korean's will be back! |
Haupt. Dietrich: Best of luck with the Korea scenario. It would be great to start a challenge game as the North Koreans, with the sole objective being to capture Pusan. Might be interesting 
I'm always on the look-out for a decent game. Shadow President is a bit different. It's a lesson for everyone in the priorities with which a world leader needs to contend. High school history and political science classes should be using this simulation as a teaching aid.
In my current "serious" game of Shadow President, I was doing pretty good: I had an approval rating of 69%, was sending aid to the needy countries, making peace with Russia and China, etc.
Then Iraq invaded Kuwait. I threatened Saddam, imposed an economic blockade, issued statements condemning him, and took my case to the UN. But to no available. Iraqi troops poured into Kuwait looting, pillaging. . .
So I declared war on Iraq, and called up the reserves. Both Turkey and Kuwait offered to host my troop deployment. . .
Casualties mounted on both sides. So, in a desperate situation, I decided to use a single, tiny, insignificant, "you wouldn't notice it if you passed it" nuclear missile, on Iraq. . . 
Well, the world was shocked at this
Then out of the blue, China hit me with nukes. . .
Soooo, I hit China with 60 nukes. . . 108 million casualties. . .
The world was appalled. . .
The UK then nuked China. . .
China then nuked the UK. . .
Not to be out-done, France nuked both the UK and the USA. . .
Sooo, I nuked France - twice. . .
China stated that in the "interest of peace" it would no longer use nukes and called on the world to unite against me. . .
So, in the "interest of peace" I nuked China with only 5 nukes instead of 50. . . 
Assassination attempts were committed in China, UK and USA. . .
I met my glorious end when, thousands of protesters wisely marched on Washington and called for my removal. . .
So I was impeached. . . 
I'm bad. . . 
But the game definitely shows you what happens once the nuclear genie is released from its bottle. . .
Similar to what happens on TV in the movie, "Wargames":
The situation can escalate quickly, and once you step over the brink, it is almost impossible to step back. . .
Last edited by Leonidas on 11-03-2002 at 23:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Wow! That game sounds pretty deep.
You must have had a big stockpile of nukes to be hitting everybody like that! |
Haupt. Dietrich: It certainly gives you a global perspective on things, which is sorely lacking in most games these days.
I thought there were a lot of nuclear weapons in my "in-game" stockpile. Maybe too much? I think the USA has about 4,300 nuclear missiles/bombs in the game Shadow President.
So I checked on some statistics and this is what I found:
1) Number of nuclear weapons currently in the US stockpile (1997):
12,500 (8,750 active, 2,500 hedge/contingency stockpile,
1,250 awaiting disassembly)
(Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project)
2) Projected U.S. nuclear warheads and bombs
after completion of the START II reductions in 2003:
5,000
(Source: U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project)
3) Additional warheads the military wants to hold
in inactive reserve to "hedge" against future threats:
2,500
(Source: U..S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project)
So I think the game Shadow President is right about the number of nuclear weapons being present. There's no doubt, those babies can do a lot of damage. . .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
I was just curious if anyone has any suggestions for another scenario to play in The Operational Art of War.
There are a ton of them out there. Has anyone played any that they would recommend? I really enjoyed the Korean scenario, but I have played the heck out of it. So I'm interested to know if there are any other good scenarios worth playing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Just to let you know: SUPERPOWER HAS GONE GOLD
"SuperPower has gone Gold. That means it is ready to be printed and we will be shipping by March 27, 2002."
So whoever gets the game give us the lowdown if it's any good or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stratguy4321
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Leonidas
Here is another game I have been keeping tabs on for some time.
It's called Supreme Ruler 2010.
Huge and detailed in conception, it is similar in scope to Superpower. You can take charge of any country in the world and lead it to glory through politics, economics, diplomacy, and war. . .
It's definitely worth a look:
http://www.supremeruler2010.com/index.html |
I think Supreme Ruler 2010 is definitely worth keeping a look out for! This looks like the next big real strategy concept, especially now that BigHugeGames has defected to the RTS 'Age of Empires' world instead.
The concepts and gameplay they talk about for Supreme Ruler 2010 look quite detailed and seem to be very well thought out.
[[stratguy]]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Using Wargames to Study History?
Here is only a small portion of a person's Master's thesis arguing that wargames can be used to study military history:
"The great battles throughout history were often won and lost as the result of a few key decisions. Those who study history often question these key decisions through documentation and logical thought estimating the cause and effect of those decisions as well the multitude of rippling effects. Historians continue to revisit the command-level decisions to determine if there were better alternatives based on the information available. Were the Allies prepared for the German Army to release the reserve panzer divisions on 6 June 1944 for an attempted decisive counterstroke at Normandy? Would British General Montgomery make a stronger effort to take the vital port at Cherbourg if he anticipated the logistical frustration caused by the destruction of the Mulberries in the summer of 1944? What were the options available to the French when the Viet Minh introduced artillery at Dien Bien Phu? Did General Franks realize his cautious rate of advance would allow Iraqi Republican Guards units to escape? These are but a few of the infinite number of questions historians explore after the battle. Historians continue to address these questions and the decisions the commanders made through historical research, but technology today allows another avenue to scrutinize history, particularly in analyzing command-level decisions on the battlefield.
"War gaming can give us insights into understanding command-level decisions. War gaming, a method of rehearsing a battle before and after it is fought, is hundreds of years old. Successful commanders used through history forms of war gaming before a battle to synchronize the many moving parts of a unit, anticipate enemy reactions, or just assist in visualizing the upcoming battle. For example, when war with the United States approached, the Japanese military conducted extensive war games for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Their military created an exact replica of the island of Oahu (about 1 to 32nd scale) and war-gamed every contingency they could think of.1 Most war gaming in today’s Army is used to train forces or staffs on hypothetical future conflict. The future of Army training increasingly focuses on simulations and their ability to train troops and staffs to battle tasks. These training simulations are invaluable to the Army in husbanding resources and training for contingencies without the risk of life. These training simulations often focus on anticipating events, evaluating cause and effect of actions, and raising questions for future consideration. Unfortunately, these training simulations have specific objectives that do not necessarily include educating the commander on how to think. This tutoring on how to think is balanced at the Army’s Command and General Staff College by the extensive curriculum and through the study of military history. This paper will examine the method on how to think through the study of military history through war games. . .
"Can we obtain historical insights on command-level decisions using commercial war games? This paper will take a famous battle, Operation Crusader in North Africa November 1941, from the perspective commercial war game The Operational Art of War (TOAW), Volume 1. This paper will address the question: How well do state-of-the-art commercial simulations replicate the key elements of command-level decision making in this game? This paper will address some key elements of TOAW and its fidelity for replicating the environment for command-level decision making. We also examined our critical analysis for credibility of the key decisions made.
"This author's interest in using computer war games as decision making training tools started as an assistant professor of military science at Brigham Young University. Simulations were incorporated into the military science curriculum. Through a series of eight periods of instruction, cadets produced a platoon operations order, then execute their course of action on the computer simulation. Most students commented that during the exercise they could finally visualize the battlefield and understand the purpose of the operations order. Many students commented they could not really understand some subjects they studied for months until put in perspective by the simulation. This produced a positive experience that commercial war games could be used for more than entertainment. This student realization of the battlefield was not unlike studying the Battle of Gettysburg. At first, the battle can be overwhelming to understand with confusing movements and formations, only to be understood when you see a map of the battle with the units arrayed. In this sense, historical computer war gaming can give a three-dimensional interactive map.6
"This study will take one of the most detailed and highly praised computer war games on the commercial market, The Operational Art of War, Volume 1 (Talonsoft), and compare the Operation Crusader scenario to the historical campaign of November 1941. This study will begin by examining the campaign and describing the battlefield information and view of the battlefield that the commanders had. The study will include what the commanders historically understood as their strategic role, which drove their operational decisions. This paper will look at the units and equipment available and their technological differences and will briefly address operational differences (how they deployed and fought their units) and how they worked together with their historical allies. This paper will look at logistics, how each side viewed this important lifeline and how close they were willing to operate on the edge of their supply capability. A final look at terrain, weapon effects, rates of movement, weather, morale, leadership, fatigue, training, and time available will help to understand this battle in relation to the war game. From these key elements of tactical and operational command-level decision making variables, an evaluation of The Operational Art of War for purposes of studying history will be made. . . "
So, the next time your girlfriend/wife/mother catches you playing a wargame, you can honestly say that you're doing in-depth research into military history. 
Last edited by Leonidas on 22-03-2002 at 13:46
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2002 21:28
|