Hello fellow wargamers.

Alex here, a game developer, passionate historian and passionate wargame player. Previously I've worked on RTS games such as Blitzkrieg and several derivatives, games based on GEM-2 engine (Men of War series) and now I am making a bit different game.

A bit of alternative history. You are a cryptographic officer aboard Submarine 227 (Type VII U-boat). You are operating Obscura (Enigma based) machine, encoding, decoding and verifying incoming traffic.

A moment chosen is early April 1942. I've picked it as the situation on the Eastern front was not that great for both sides and on the Atlantic things started to heat up. I am trying to put that through the game, to mention it and create a sort of a light connection with the real events taking place.

Some of the devices used in the game are pure fantasy on my end. Like ECHO stamper. The story is that your side has a dedicated stamper which declares messages either a TRUE ECHO (verified, clean) or FALSE ECHO (something is missing or wrong).

There is also a teleprinter which is amalgam of several devices, used to receive incoming messages, formatted in more modern shape:

The basic game flow is about talking with your crew mates, processing messages and deciding which one is true and which one is fake. Decisions then have some consequences in the coming steps or days.

I am looking forward hearing your thoughts on this, if you have some comments, questions and/or suggestions. Thank you in advance on time and effort and I hope that you like the game concept.

Edit: oops! of course I went misspelled 'EMCON' in the title :)

Hi Reddit, I'm building a "sensor-warfare" RTS. I love the sensor/detection mechanics in games like Cold Waters, and Sea Power, but they are either all about historical units and real-world campaigns -- or at the other end they entirely in a sci-fi/fantasy setting like Nebulous: Fleet Command and Highfleet. I couldn't find something in the middle: a combined arms "sensor warfare" game in a more abstracted, moddable sandbox.

Here's the basic three-bullet feature set:

• Design and customise 'drones' of all different types using a built-in blueprint designer (subs, ships, planes, helicopters, missiles, torpedos). Tradeoffs between payload, speed, stealth, and sensor capability.

• Launch, recover, repair, refuel these via one or more 'drone carriers' to control the map, destroy the enemy carriers, and win the game

• "EMCON is everything": semi-realistic sonars, radars, IR, and optical sensors -- optimise your units for stealth or sensor power, and tactically manage sensors to gain an upper-hand

The screenshot shows an early build -- as you can see I'm leaning heavily into the 'combat information centre' aesthetic (AKA the solo-dev-who-cant-make-3d-models art style :)) . It's definitely rough, but the core loop (build, deploy, attack) is already working.

I'd love to hear your ideas about what you'd like to see in the game and what you think would make it enjoyable. If you'd like to help with play testing I've put up a quick website you can sign up to for more info: https://dronecomgame.com .

EDIT: discord here if you'd like to follow along https://discord.gg/MMzQCeQPfG

title

Hey @computerwargames,

I’ve been building a WWII RTS called Field of Command for several months now, but wondering if it’s really got legs for me to continue…

Some of the key features:

- persistent OOB across campaigns
- unique deploy & withdraw system
- scaling from platoon to brigade level
- delegating orders to subordinate HQs
- telling untold stories like Cassel 1940

The game centres on scaling up with your characters rank. If you earn promotions from strong performance you unlock greater command responsibilities and bigger battles to fight.

Appreciate its hard to tell from words and a single clip so I’ve also uploaded a demo:
https://play.fieldofcommand.com

I’d love to know your honest thoughts and opinions. Is this something you’d play? What would you want to see? In what circumstances would you consider paying? Is there already another game that does this?

Finally I’m quite torn between real historical accuracy and fun gameplay. It’s a real fine line to balance as someone who really cares about both. What would be your priority?

I’ve been working on Europae Invicta: Pike and Shot, a historical strategy game combining a real-time campaign map with tactical battles.

A big part of the inspiration comes from history channels I personally enjoy watching, such as SandRhoman History and similar channels covering warfare and society in the Early Modern period.

I’m still experimenting with formations, AI behaviour and how closely the gameplay can reflect the actual tactics of the time. One of the reasons I wanted to share the project here is that I hope to get more history enthusiasts involved early on.

I’d really like to hear input and feedback from people who know the period well, especially when it comes to tactics, equipment, army composition and the general feel of warfare around 1600. I know a game will always need compromises for gameplay, but I want the result to feel as authentic and believable as possible.

The current reveal trailer mainly shows the battle system. The campaign side is still at an earlier stage.

Great mission variety, great story, great atmosphere, great mechanics. A classic

Hello Generals, Legates, and Admirals!

I'm a former producer and designer on the Ultimate General series. We're currently actively working on a project about the Roman Legion - Legatus, but for now, most of the work is being handled by artists, and I decided to return to a long-standing idea of mine – a World War II project where you are a Group Army Commander and can create your own armies and fight on the Eastern Front. For now, this is just my pet project with a playable prototype covering Operation Barbarossa without graphics and UI. But if you like this idea, I'm ready to involve the "old guard" of Ultimate Generals to bring this game to life. You can see a gameplay video of the prototype, which I managed to put together in my free time.

I'm also thinking about creating a construction kit where anyone could create any modern-day conflict in a similar format, specify a map area for downloading and styling for the battle area, create a unit catalog and their visuals and characteristics, and finally assemble battles and a full campaign. When everything is ready, the campaign and battles can be shared with other players.

What do you think? Do you like the concept?

Hello! I've been working on a semi low-fi First person/RTS hybrid war simulation based on the Midway naval engagement. You can pick a role on either side: Pilot, Squadron leader, Carrier/Fleet Commander, Submarine Captain. Currently I tried to base the Japanese side purely on their historical goals for Midway, elimate/take the island and destory the US carrier fleet. I've got two carriers modeled out for each side currently, working on the others and still. There's a full day-night cycle, but for now I've capped the matches at a single day which takes about 4 irl hours. Each side does start much closer together than they did historically which is just for actual gameplay/fun purposes. Other little things off the top of my head: VOIP is used by players and ai pilots to relay and reveal enemy positiosn on a decaying timer to the fleet commander's tac map, Carrier ready rooms will be staged with ai pilots as they wait their call to go, hangar bays are fully functioning on carriers as the crew will swap torps/bombs and carry out refuels and repairs, The US side gets the PBY for spotting, currently its cockpit isn't modeled but hopefully ill get that in soon.

It's still quite early, but I'll be hopefully getting some play testers soon. Multiplayer is a bit buggy at the moment... so trying to get that more in hand before I ask for any testers.

Steam page should be up soon-ish and I'll do the playtest through Steam.

This is a rant, triggered by an article about [War In The East 2!] (https://www.wargamer.com/gary-grigsbys-war-in-the-east-2/release-date-pre-order), where apparently the developer proudly announces that the manual is “the largest and most comprehensive manual ever printed for a Slitherine game."

Dear developers, if your game in 2021 needs a giant manual, you fail at game design.

I have been getting used to graphics looking like they where made with Paint in 1990, as well as the laughably bad sound many of these games have. That's ok, I get that not every team has the ressources to create a game that looks like a modern AAA game.

What I can't wrap my head around that the interface often sucks so much. Why in god's name can't I move units and attack as easy as in the "mainstream" wargames i.e. HOI? Why does it have to be a chore to move a single division, and then 200 along the eastern front?

Why do I have to read a 500 page manual to play a game? Please, please shift some of your ressources and pay a UI designer, and make games more accessible.

You're creating a TURN BASED game with damned HEXES as landscape and a week or so passing at each turn. It's not realistic anyway, so why add three million "realistic" features? It's just cumbersome.

I looooove wargames, but I just don't have the time anymore to waste it by trying to understand mechanics hidden behind 5 layers of menus.

Yours,

An old-timey wargamer.

John Tiller (founder of John Tiller Software and designer of many popular wargames) has passed away. He leaves a mighty legacy.

Condolences to all the Tiller family and friends.

https://georgiacremation.com/obituary/john-albert-tiller/

Started my first ever Strategic Command game with a few more SC titles waiting to be played.
Really enjoying the game. Just wish it didn't magically change time of day :P

During my studies at university, I have been apart of many crisis simulations focusing on the time leading up to an invasion scenario. I enjoyed them, but couldn't find anything that modeled that feeling as a solo-computer experience. For the past few months I have been working on a crisis simulation/wargame for a Taiwan scenario. I don't have much coding experience (if any) and did not seek out building this to make money or anything, I just wanted something I could play myself, but I'm trying to see if other people would actually enjoy it. I'm not a programmer, my uni time was spent studying international security and polsci, so I've been using AI-assisted coding heavily throughout development. The simulation design, mechanics, scenario design, game systems and overall architecture are my own, with AI being used primarily to implement, debug and iterate on the code. I'm posting it here because I'm particularly interested in feedback on the wargame/simulation design rather than the programming itself.

The game drops you in the feeling of being in a situation room, you are not one single role (not an admiral, president, or general) you are the whole force of the government. You are running a national level response during a deteriorating crisis. Your objective isn't simply to win a conventional war. It's to manage the crisis, interpret incomplete intelligence, deter the adversary and hopefully prevent the war from happening at all.

The simulation currently has:

• A Taiwan Strait operational map with air, naval and ground assets

• Civilian aircraft and infrastructure

• Fog of war and unidentified contacts

• An adversary AI that makes its own strategic decisions rather than following a scripted invasion sequence

• Intelligence/ISR and changing confidence in assessments

• National Security Council decision-making

• Military readiness, reserve mobilisation and leave recalls

• Diplomatic and allied responses

• Civilian/economic consequences

• News, social media and OSINT reacting to events

• Custom social media posts that you can write yourself, and the world will react.

• A transition from the crisis phase into a conventional WEGO wargame if deterrence fails

It's still very much a WIP.

For people here who play/are interested in computer wargames: what would you want to see in a crisis simulation like this? I'm particularly interested in thoughts on:

1. What national-level decisions would actually make interesting gameplay

2. How much information should the player receive versus having to make decisions under uncertainty?

3. What would make the pre-war phase feel tense rather than just being a slower version of a conventional wargame?

4. Are there existing games/simulations that you think handle this kind of crisis particularly well?

I've been working on a new turn-based, tactical-scale WWII game that aims to (eventually) capture the depth and detail of classic wargames like Steel Panthers, but on a brand new engine re-designed from the ground up for maximum mod support, ease of use, performance, and more.

I'm happy to share several big recent updates on the project:
- As requested, there is now a Steam page for people to wishlist. The full game will be available on Steam and through the website.
- We now have a Discord server for discussion and feedback.
- The game was recently covered in an interview in Strategy and Wargaming.
- The full UI rework is finally out! This makes the units drastically easier to see and manipulate, especially when stacked (among many, many other improvements).
- Terrain visuals have been ~80% reworked, though there is still much to do.
- Over 700 hand-selected historical WWII loading screen photographs.
- And much more...

The demo is already freely available to download and playtest here: https://steelcompany.net/

Any and all feedback from wargamers and grognards is highly appreciated!

Happy to answer any questions people have as well.

1. More tactical hard counter

2. Bit more realistic

Don't know which direction to take, so i'm asking for experts help

steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/5087810/Pennants_of_Glory_Condottiere/

I've been working on this game on and off since the start of 2023 ( yeah around that time ). Back then I made something, left it, came back, left it again. A few months ago I went back to it properly, much more detailed this time, and I've been on it ever since. Now I've hit a point where I love playing it so much that I can't tell anymore if it's actually good, or if I've just made a game for me. Maybe I'm doing a bit too much. So I need people who aren't me to tell me.

A bit about me: I love HOI4 , I love Rule the Waves 3, and I love pretty much any game where you sit in front of tables and numbers and make decisions off them (spreadsheet simulator). This game came out of that.

It's a grand strategy game with exploration built in, so it's part 4X, but at its heart you're running a whole country. Everything is simulated from the point of view of people, starting with you. You're one man running a government made of other men. Your Minister of War is a person, and so is your Minister of Finance. Most of the time you're reading their books and deciding what to do with what's in them.

The game comes down to four things.

War. You control your army down to the smallest detail: what each man carries, how the army is organised, who commands what, how orders move through the ranks, and how your generals climb the ladder. Every soldier has 58 stats of his own. Training isn't some general bonus. You train specific stats, so you can build a regiment whose stamina is out of this world, or one that shoots straighter than anyone else's. Kit changes stats too. The navy works the same way. You build new ports, design new ships with new guns, reorganize your fleets and change how they fight.

Internal. Not everyone is happy that you rule them, and you can't make everyone happy. You arm and train the police, set up a secret police and send it into the cities and regions that worry you, build prisons and guard them, and change how the courts judge and sentence people. And a lot more.

Economy. You control exactly where your money comes from: tariffs, taxes, raising them or cutting them. If you want to go darker, you can turn the country against a minority with propaganda and then seize their wealth. The game lets you, and it remembers that you did.

Diplomacy. Europe in the 1800s was so diplomatically active it was almost a game of its own. The real challenge is surviving it, getting what you want before everyone else decides they've had enough of you and unites against you.

That's the game. It doesn't even have a name yet. If any of this sounds like something you'd want to play, or you think I've gone too far down the rabbit hole, please tell me. I'm also looking for playtesters, so comment or DM me if you're interested.

Everything is real. Nothing comes out of thin air. If a soldier needs ammunition, it has to be made somewhere, loaded onto a wagon, carried down actual roads, guarded on the way, and delivered to where he is. If any step fails, he doesn't get it. Money works the same way. It isn't a number in the corner of the screen. It's coin sitting in chests in real places, with men guarding them, and moving it from one end of the country to the other takes wagons, escorts and days on the road. You're one man running all of this, and the game never lets you forget that everything you use has to come from somewhere.

Edit: to clarify yeah you can focus on one thing is not must that you do everything you can name people on positions and they would most likely try to align them self with your general idea