Here's the way I see this discussion -- it's all about using computers to replace the 'drudgery' of running the tabletop battle. Here's the problem with this -- there are lots of really good rules sets that work just fine for running the battle on the tabletop. I think that all of this attention is misdirected. Since the tabletop battles run just fine as they are, we should be looking to an aspect of the gaming that doesn't work nearly so well. Is there an aspect of gaming that doesn't work well? You bet your lucky dice there is! I'm talking about the overall structure that rings the armies to the tabletop in the first place. The campaign rules the strategic situation, the 'big picture'. That's what I see missing in so many of these games. The battle is usually just two sides bashing it out, without a sense of what went on before or after the battle. How did this particular army happen to get here at this time? How can that army, badly outnumbered, fight an effective campaign involving ambush and skirmishing with foraging parties?

Sure, there are some simple campaign systems in a few games. And there might even be a more complicated system out there; my knowledge of the field is rather limited. None of them has really satisfied me (although the rules in Firefight came awfully close!), and from what I read on the net, others seem dissatisfied, as well.

So, what might these rules be like? Well, I should think that it could vary tremendously, from a simple text readout, "Red Army, units A, B and C, vs. Blue Army, units 1, 2, 3." Or it could be more complicated, with both players looking at a situation map (showing only what they know, of course!) and making strategic decisions. The computer then takes these decisions, and determines which units run into each other.

So, what are some of the issues the computer game/assistant could deal with:

UNITS -- The computer could be used to keep track of both armies. This could be as extensive as having a full unit roster entered into the system before play, with the players updating it after the game to reflect losses. An algorithm for determining how many casualties return could then modify the unit composition between games.

Or it could be a basic, Unit A, Unit B, etc., and the players would keep a roster of the units. Eventually, a unit might be an empty shell, but the computer wouldn't care, if the player kept putting it out in the field to get beat on.

MAPS -- Again, a lot of variability here. It could be as simple as a grid. Red Army starts with units in A-1 through A-3. Blue Army starts with units in J-8 through J-10. The display would show the player where his units are, and what enemy units have been detected. It might also have some minimal information about the type of terrain in the square. Each player would look at his/her own information, then input what units would move where, and for what purpose (scouting, movement to another location, foraging, etc.). The computer then compares what each side did, and brings up a list of squares where both sides have units.

Maybe something more elaborate. I'm envisioning the situation map from the movie _The_Battle_of_the_Bulge_. There are grid squares, sure. But the units would be told to move from one place to another. After being given movement orders, the computer would then compute them, and report when the two sides engaged. Then take the forces, put them on the table, and fight it out.

LOGISTICS -- something that is hardly ever done with tabletop battles, from what I've seen, and which could be handled by the computer as easily as anything else. :-) I'm not even going to try and describe this one. I know it's _real_important_, but I haven't got a clue about it. Armies that outrun their supply have problems, though. And especially in a long war, it's not always going to be possible to get the best and brightest. The German's built a lot of assault guns in WWII because they were easier than tanks, and they needed the units in the field. But I've seen games that had a couple of companies of Panthers, and no PzKw IV's. Why? Because Panthers are cool. I'm sure every commander would have preferred Panthers to the PzKw IV. (Or maybe not, considering some of the reliability issues with the early ones. :-)

So anyway, this is what I think could be done with a computer-assisted game. It would give some sort of *reason* for the forces to be there. You could have disparate forces on the table. You could have ambushes and raids on the rear areas. Does anybody else think that this is a thread worth pursuing? Or better yet, an idea worth writing a program for?