General Staff, a new Kriegsspiel type wargame

Mike Dunn suggested that I let you know of the new Kriegsspiel type PC wargame that I'm working on, General Staff.

The link to the development blog is General Staff.

I was going to post this over in the PC Games section but I don't seem to have that ability.

I would be very happy to hear your suggestions and comments.

Fantastic stuff, very promising, thanks for all your hard work and I look forward to buying the finished product.

Re topography I would prefer 3d, but the 2d alternative also looks very good.

Loosely historical scenarios also preferred; its a bit too hard to suspend disbelief that Napoleon ever fought US Grant, and would detract from enjoyment, I feel.

By way of scenario suggestions, Alaca Dag 1877 was an admittedly obscure but very good example of the (Russian) use of topography to march round, and force withdrawal from, a strong (Turkish) position.

Bautzen 1813 featured some good use (by Napoleon) of topography, as of course did Austerlitz 1805.

Yes, it looks very interesting. Please do keep us posted on progress.

Folks here will be very happy to help with suggestions or fielding queries.

martin (J)

Some of my friends have been suggesting various battles from the Peninsular War and I've been busy reading about them. I think that this era will fit very well into the General Staff engine.

I'm looking for 'smaller' battles; corps level or below. And the 19th century (possibly 18th, too) I think will be the best fit for the model.

I very much appreciate the recommendations of specific battles. I will look into Alaca Dag 1877 (I confess my ignorance).

One question that will be on many minds here and in other communities will be prospects for multi-player contests. Will GS be designed to support several players taking commands and sub-commands over an internet server? KS HITS games have been known to involve as many as 10 or 12 while the largest GCM game I can recall had 23 players.

General Staff is designed to facilitate giving orders. This is especially helpful to novice players:


I don't anticipate [i]General Staff[i] supporting more than one player for each side. The built in AI is designed to calculate optimal paths for units based on the overall orders the user gives.

Another factor to consider, especially for the European wars, would be unit cohesion. As a fight wears on, units will become disorganized and as a result less combat effective. For a unit such as cavalry, this is a critical factor. It took a long time for a cavalry regiment to reorganize after a charge. You could roll that into the fatigue calculation in some way.

Yes, I agree and both morale and fatigue are adversely affected by combat. Fatigue increases with rapid movement, too. Morale decreases when a unit can no longer see its commander.

I was actually thinking of a state that is to some extent separate from morale and fatigue. Cohesion is a property which measures the unit's ability to fight in an organized fashion, with movement and fighting causing it to decrease. Experienced troops would tend to suffer less from it than depot troops, for example. Cavalry would always experience high levels any time it moved significant distances on the battlefield or charged.

I think I've seen wargames that have had a cohesion variable though I can't remember any titles at the moment. (Maybe Avalon Hill?)

One of the key design elements in General Staff is the desire to 'keep it simple'. Partially this is because I want General Staff to be accessible to first-time wargamers (think of console players who have never seen anything remotely like a wargame before).

This is an extraordinary opportunity to expand the wargaming demographics. Consequently, I want to keep the number of metrics that the user has to deal with to a minimum.

But I really appreciate the comments!

I think I've seen wargames that have had a cohesion variable though I can't remember any titles at the moment. (Maybe Avalon Hill?)

The 1977 edition of AH Gettysburg had, as I recall, "disorganization points" that units accumulated as a result of movement, retreats, facing shifts, and a host of other activities. The "ultimate in realism" for Gettysburg simulations in its day, this board game was virtually unplayable at the advanced levels because of all the bookkeeping involved. But, of course, we now have computers capable of handling all that stuff for us.  

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1575/gettysburg-1977-edition

It was, indeed, 'all the bookkeeping' that first got me involved in writing computer wargames.
My very first effort was a 'bookkeeping' program for Avalon Hill's Midway.