I have been reading some quite brilliant new(ish) books on World War Two. I especially recommend The Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze and Kiev 1941: Hitler's Battle for Supremacy in the East by David Stahel. Both books aim for maximum myth busting, Tooze focusing on the “Speer production miracle” and Stahel digging deep into the communication within the German high command and the post war blame shifting. Both look very hard at logistics.
Stahel
looks (among other things) at the wear rate on German trucks which steadily
de-motorized the supply system. If you are used to games win which the limit of
logistics is to trace a supply line, his analysis is quite a revelation.
Tooze (an
economic historian) works at a high level and uncovers the real constraints on
the German economy during the war. I had
especially not realized the extend to which food production – and starvation – drove
so many decisions and limited German options.
I think, coming from North America where we export food, that it’s hard
to have a visceral feel to how food production can be a key factor in strategic
thinking.
Thanks to that reading, I want to put together production and food supply models for my still unnamed campaign. Step one is counting a classifying hexes. So looking at the Blitzkrieg map lets enumerate the terrain features.
Category |
Type |
Notes |
Hex |
Clear |
In most games this is treated as
unremarkable open land with uniform road development presenting unremarkable
military opportunities or obstacles.
This is not fine grained enough
for me for the economic model or for differentiating terrain for the gaming
table. I think that I can get a finer
granularity by including adjacent terrain as a modifier. |
Hex |
Desert |
To be precise, the Great Koufax Desert,
included in the game for players with Rommel fantasies. Oh, and the original Blitzkrieg had a couple
of 60s pop culture and wargaming names for the geography.
I’ve been arguing with myself
about this one because it’s unrealistic.
But seriously? It’s just for fun. |
Hex |
Mountain |
But how high and rough? My current thought is to select some European range such as the Carpathians as a standard. I note that mountain to mountain hexsides have been highlighted on the map. Mountains surrounded by mountains might be special. And gaming mountain warfare would at least be a challenge. |
Hex |
Swamp |
What it says on the tin |
Hex |
City |
There are some hints at relative size. The multi-hex cities of the original
version are missing. |
Hex |
Forest |
Very dense woodland, with low
population density, little arable land, and occasional settlements linked by
logging roads. |
Other |
Road |
Mainline dual track railway. Also,
an indicator of development, so hexes near a mainline might be more developed
in some way. |
Other |
Beach |
A yellow line on the coast
indicates beaches which can be used for landings. But is all the Great Koufax shoreline also
beach? A decision to make. |
Other |
River |
Navigability is a detail that most
be sorted out. River monitors are not
in the rules but are an interesting detail. |
Other |
Port |
Labels some cities, a few actually
inland on rivers. |
and then the points from which more details can be drawn
Type |
Adjacent to |
Effects |
Clear, Forest |
Mountain |
Somewhat hillier than normal, on
the level of the Ardennes (forest) or the Alberta foothills (clear) |
Clear |
Road |
Better communications, improved agricultural
development, higher population density |
Clear |
River |
Slightly higher agricultural
productivity |
Clear |
City |
Higher population density and some
industrial buildings especially along roads. |
Also, thanks to JSTOR and a professional historian friend who pointed me in the right direction I was able to download Arnold Daniel, "Regional Differences of Productivity in European Agriculture" (Review of Economic Studies, 1944-1945, Volume 12, No. 1 pp50-70"). In addition to an interesting discussion of the reasons for differences which can lead to cultural backstory for a worldbuilding, he has productivity for key crops in Metric tons per hectare for the countries in his study. So count hexes, determine scale, attach a factor for the terrain and the country, convert to calories per hex per harvest, Bob's your uncle.
I think that next I will look at scale, which will be an interesting problem since how scales work will determine how strategy translates to the table. I am thinking right now or some for of nesting of time and distance so the pace of the game and the strategic/operation/tactical interfaces feel "right" without worrying about everything being mapped 1:1.
No comments:
Post a Comment