VR Designs

continued from developer notes #5

Hitler

Hitler was an outlier. Here was a domineering, driven, charismatic man who exerted a level of control well beyond any reasonable expectations of somebody perched at the very apex of a command pyramid. That those same personal qualities that enabled him to overpower and overshadow all those beneath him also drove him in directions best described as dark and sinister is not in dispute.

He was a most unpleasant individual but, having acknowledged this, it’s his influence on the command structure that is of particular interest from a design point of view.

The German Player is firmly ensconced within the hierarchy. Hitler dominates from the top. How do you accommodate the reality of Hitler’s influence without turning the Player into a wooden puppet that jerks to the string pulls of a computerised Führer? Yet the Hitler factor was so strong that to exclude it from a game modelling Operational Command would be a major oversight.

Disassociating the game from Hitler’s dark side is an easy first step. That’s the low hanging fruit plucked and consumed. We’ll have to jump for the rest.

Hitler didn’t help matters. Rather than having clearly defined goals for his invasion of Russia, he kept changing his mind. One moment he was charging towards Leningrad, the next the Ukraine. Like a child with Attention Deficit Disorder he was easily distracted and would flip flop from one objective to the next.

At the commencement of Operation Barbarossa there was a specific plan in place which was largely followed as originally laid out. But it ceased after the Battle of Smolensk. The plan anticipated that by then the Red Army would have been defeated. Indeed it suffered such horrendous casualties that, if it had been a boxer, it would have been flat on its back on the canvas. But rather than stay down for the count it staggered, bloodied and dazed, to its feet. It possessed reserves hither to unknown by the Germans. They kept punching, landing blow after blow. It reeled and stumbled but stayed upright.

The Germans must have thought they were fighting a Bolshevik Golem. No matter how hard they hit, how often they hit or where they hit, it just wouldn’t die.

When Plan A succeeded tactically but failed strategically, the Germans were left in a conundrum. Tensions boiled over between Hitler and his High Command. Everybody had a different view on what to do next. There was no clarity or consensus.

It’s no surprise that Hitler became fickle and changeable. He wasn’t favourably disposed to taking the advice of the upper echelons of the Prussian Officer Corps at the best of times but when they failed to agree among themselves as to the best course of action he fell back onto his own devices.

Plan B was rapidly followed by Plan C which, in turn, was swept off the table to make room for Plan D.

To accommodate the ‘whim of the Führer’ the game has Hitler calling a conference to discuss strategy roughly once a month. There are five of these and it’s not guaranteed that one will be called every month. There is a measure of uncertainty. Some will be skipped. Except the last one in early November. That’s a given as it’s necessary to provide certainty for the Player.

At the completion of each conference Hitler will issue a new, numbered, ‘Directive’ that will outline his goals in order of priority. The Player has, depending on his chosen strategy, the ability to exert a measure of influence.

Mechanically we now have a reasonably realistic facsimile of Hitler’s decision making process. At irregular intervals the Player will be summonsed to a conference where upon Hitler will arbitrarily decide which objectives are to be given precedence over others. But what impact will this have on the Player? Will they be forced to comply with the fickle demands of the Führer?

Well that depends. Right at the start of the game they choose one of three over riding strategies that they will follow. The first requires them to support Hitler and take whatever is his current objective. As this is a moving target there are some obvious disadvantages. These are offset by assistance that Hitler is willing to give along the way.

At the other extreme ‘Demand Military Independence’ will have the Player standing up for his right to fight the war on his own terms. Without assistance and with the risk of getting fired if he fails to cover his flanks politically.

The interaction between the Player’s approach and Hitler’s changeable goals now becomes apparent. With one approach – Support Hitler – the outcome of a conference becomes vitally important and there is a need for the Player to be able to place himself in a position where he can exert some sway over what is decided.

With a different approach – Demand Military Independence – what Hitler decides is irrelevant as the Player has determined to tread his own path, albeit with some risk attached. Here we’ve got a workable mechanism that allows the Player to trade independence for ongoing assistance.

But that’s not all. The Hitler factor is woven into the fabric of the game even deeper. Every decision that is taken which aligns with Hitler’s current primary objective will be easier to make. It will cost less Political Points. It will be the path of least resistance.

Conversely a decision that is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of the Führer will be a harder road to tread with a Political Point premium being charged. To highlight this consider a straightforward fuel allocation decision. Perhaps you decide that you’d like Armeegruppe Mitte to have a greater share at the expense of the other two theatres. If Hitler has his heart set on Moscow then you’ll receive a discount but if Moscow is sitting third or fourth on his current list of priorities then you’ll be paying a premium in Political Points.

It’s a subtle way of reminding the Player that, while you are free to do as you wish, the view of the Führer needs to be taken into account.

Let’s not forget the fiddling. Hitler couldn’t help himself. As Barbarossa progressed he inserted himself more and more into day to day operational matters that were well below his remit as supreme commander. That book on Delegation previously mentioned? In one ear and out the other.

The game models this by applying intermittent movement penalties to a randomly selected Panzergruppe as these were the ‘bright, shiny, light’ formations that most caught the Führer’s attention. The level of interference is minor but enough be an annoyance. The frequency of the interference is keyed into the Player’s chosen approach. It’s assumed that if you’ve chosen to ‘Support Hitler’ then you are sufficiently inside the tent for him to meddle more often than if standing at the entrance, one foot on either side, with a ‘Moscow or Bust’ approach. A big advantage to the ‘Demand Military Independence’ approach is the total absence of interference by the Führer. He is standing off to one side, impatiently waiting for you to drop the ball.

The ability to shift a Panzergruppe from one theatre to another, as previously mentioned, requires the assent of Hitler. If the two of you aren’t on speaking terms then your strategic flexibility will be constrained.

Which highlights the focus that the game has given the ‘H’ factor. He’s there. He’s important. The Player is given scope to work with him, or against him, with corresponding trade-offs but without being forced to don a straight jacket.

Cheers,
Cameron

continued from developer notes #4

Delegation

Being in Command entails making a lot of decisions. A fundamental rule is that the higher up the Chain of Command you climb the more decisions there are to make. This applies equally to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Typically the increase in decisions required escalates in an exponential manner with each step up the hierarchy. It doesn’t take long before anyone attempting to ‘do-it-all’ is overwhelmed by sheer volume. It’s not hard to find examples of people who have reached an evolutionary dead end as a micro manager.

Delegation steps in. Commanders have staff. They have subordinates. Their job is to take care of all the lower level decisions, freeing up the Commander for the important ones.

A model of Command would be very one dimensional if it didn’t incorporate delegation. You would be, once again, elevating the Player up to a God like status where Command is a mere wave of the hand.

Delegation implies tension. You’re busy, you’ve got a lot on your plate. There isn’t time to personally take care of everything, even if your staff have ensured you are only dealing with the important decisions.

Choosing which decisions to delegate is an interesting decision in itself. Having your Chief of Staff deal with a matter is likely to result in a less optimal outcome than if you tackled it yourself. His grasp of the bigger picture, his strategic understanding is at a lower level than your own. As it should be. He’s not in charge, you are.

In order to make this model work there needs to be a currency of Command. A finite resource that is accumulated and spent. Which would be Political Points (PP). These are an abstract concept that encompass your personal time and energy, your political goodwill and your available staff resources.

Political Points allow decisions to be quantified. Yes, you can choose that option but it will require ‘x’ amount of PP’s. Certain decision options require more PP’s than others. At times you aren’t going to have enough PP’s to cover all the decisions. Delegation becomes necessary.

Do you keep a reserve of PP’s against a rainy day when a really crucial decision might turn up or do you spend, spend, spend, moving forward on a wing and a prayer?

Cheers,
Cameron

continued from developer notes #3

Superiors and Subordinates

Once it was decided to model a Chain of Command there was a need to fill the hierarchy with people. For the Soviet side they were all subordinates but the German side involved an equal mix of superiors as well.

Subordinates are easy to deal with. You give them orders and they carry them out. Perhaps not quite how you’d like them to and perhaps with a degree of resistance but, overall, if you ask them, they’ll do it.

Superiors immediately run into the problem of authority. They are your boss. You’ve got one at work and you’ve probably got one at home. Do you want another, game based, one telling you what to do?

Having an upset subordinate yelling at you might not be ideal but having the computer speakers spout forth curt, arrogant, orders from above, demanding that you do this or that, is only going to have you grumpily checking the prices of a new monitor the following day and having to explain why you’ve got a bandaged hand.

A key design challenge that had to be overcome was how to give a sense of being within a hierarchy while at the same time not hobbling the Player’s ability to play the game as he’d like. This is, as you’d imagine, a pretty fine line. Go too far in the direction of authority and the Player ends up chaffing against unwanted restrictions. Swing back the other way and you’ve lost the immersion of having to answer to Superiors.

The German High Command structure helped in this. Rather than the highly efficient, well oiled machine that it is typically portrayed as it was, in reality, a dysfunctional organisation with many quirks. There were reasons for this and it deserves a detailed explanation of it’s own but, for the moment, we can assume that the lines of authority were, in many cases, fuzzy.

Von Paulus (on phone) about his conversation with Jodl on the command set-up in North Africa. All the Führer cares about is that Rommel should not be hampered by any superior Hq. Put over him. Jodl will send up another plan.

F.M Von Halder’s War Diary, 13th May 1941

There were many cases of overlapping authorities and individual power bases. Who reported to who was clear cut only where everybody involved was a professional military officer. Higher up, where there were Party members and assorted flunkies, it was a lot vaguer.

It was greatly complicated by the micromanagement and interference of Hitler himself, the man sitting at the top of the Chain of Command. He hadn’t read the book on ‘How to Delegate, sit back and let your Generals Win the War’. Then again, perhaps he had and it had ended up in the rubbish bin. Hitler’s interference was a doubled edged sword. There were times when his intuitive grasp of a situation was far superior to any of the professional military judgements on offer. As the campaign progressed he became more and more convinced that he knew better. Hubris be thy name.

Eventually the great gambler succumbed to the inevitable ‘reversion to the mean’ that applies to all mortals. Sheer force of personality and a domineering, dictatorial, manner couldn’t overcome the law of averages. Like any compulsive gambler he ended up losing more than he started with.

Which is a topic well outside the scope of this book. But in terms of superiors it offers some interesting angles. The Player has the role of Operational Commander of the Eastern front – F.M Franz Halder. He had a direct superior officer, that of F.M Von Brauchitsch who was Commander in Chief of the German Army. Both are professional military men and it was a clear cut relationship.

Except it wasn’t. F.M Von Brauchitsch was considered ineffectual in dealing with Hitler. Here is a superior who, on occasion, would step forward and do his job but who, most of the time, was too busy dealing with his own problems. Hitler was his personal banker. Von Brauchitsch was in heavy debt to the Fuhrer. He lacked the moral fibre to stand up to Hitler when it was necessary. By the end of 1941 he was gone. A convenient scapegoat for the failure to take Moscow and in failing health. Exit stage right.

Then there were the motley cast of Party characters who were all higher up the Chain of Command but whose influence over the Player’s assigned role varied and was, at times, murky. They were superiors but off to one side, tangential to the main game. But all of them were capable of exerting an influence when the need arose. We could consider them to be part time Superiors.

The German Command structure was unique in that authority over logistical matters was split between two people – General’s Gercke and Wagner. Logistical concerns are always going to play an important part of an invasion of a country as geographically vast as Russia. Gercke and Wagner are destined to have staring roles in a game portraying Operation Barbarossa.

Which raises the question of whether they were superiors or subordinates? They were neither. Both were in the category best defined as ‘unclear’. Both straddled multiple roles in dual headquarters (OKH & OKW).

This is a gift. Here are two characters dealing with the one key function. It’s a little like having two separate builders work simultaneously on an extension for your house. They both have their own teams of subcontractors. They are both jointly building your extension. Yet when there is a problem who do you talk to? Is one going to blame the other? Are you going to have to take sides? How are you going to keep them both happy and maintain the momentum?

What about inter service rivalries? Naval matters were largely constrained to the bathtub. They did play a part but it was the kind of role that you’d hire somebody off the street for. They’d be instructed to say a few lines, smile at the camera and don’t cause any trouble.

For the Luftwaffe, however, you’d need a competent actor, one with enough gravitas to carry the part. It’s a major role. The Air war was an important aspect of the campaign. Hermann Goering, the corpulent, overdressed Reichsmarschall, competently holds down this role with his own unique style. He is both a superior in the chain of command and a character with whom the player will have a lot of contact with. He was colourful, unpleasant, eccentric and a take-no-prisoners political infighter. Perfect.

Cheers,
Cameron

continued from developer notes #2

The Chain of Command

This is a little trickier than it first appears. Yes there is a Chain of Command. But where does the Player sit within it?

Most military simulation type games answer this by having you, the Player, being at the very apex of whatever Chain of Command exists. It’s an easy way to do it. You are the guy in charge. You make all the decisions. There is no need to worry about the implications of a hierarchy.

There are multiple subordinates who willing carry out your wishes. They are typically portrayed as a collection of stats. Their main purpose is to apply those stats as bonuses to various game mechanics. They have no opinions or agendas of their own. Their raison d’etre is to carry out your orders as invisible, one dimensional characters, who are there in the same way as a mountain is there.

Of course not all games are like this. There are some excellent examples in other genres but they are rarely found in the world of military simulations.

Back to the topic. The game takes a dual approach to the Chain of Command. For the Germans the Player is placed within the hierarchy whereas the Soviet Player finds himself representing the man at the top, Stalin. This allows the game to present two very different Command experiences.

Traction equipment lacking: Tests now in progress to determine serviceability of French traction equipment. Only limited mobility. Will have supply vehicles, but tactical mobility cannot be achieved (no ammunition columns). Two batteries are put on self-propelled mounts, to serve as heavy tank destroyers. “Traction Bns., motorised” could be formed, but chain of command and control would be very difficult in practice.

F.M Von Halder’s War Diary, 27th February, 1941

If you’re Stalin, you’re not going to be fussed about politics. Or opinions. You’re a ruthless dictator. Anybody steps out of line and you’ll have them lined up in front of a firing squad in short order. There is a directness and simplicity in being able to do exactly as you wish.

Is this then, the typical war game approach as mentioned above? No. People are still involved and while they aren’t going to argue the toss they will present other challenges. Still, once you put the Player at the head of the hierarchy the people aspect becomes less important. They tend to fade into the background. There needs to be a different focus.

What that focus might be did indeed present a design challenge. The approach I settled on was to make it an internal one – Stalin’s state of mind. More on this later but, for the Soviet Player, the role of the people involved, all of them subordinates, is not themselves but in what affect they have on Stalin himself.

Cheers,
Cameron