Let’s Talk about Tires

Decisive Campaigns III design blog #3

Assume that you’ve been left in charge of a big lump of machinery. There are pipes and valves everywhere, steam vents abound and there are a multitude of gauges and controls. It’s a complicated mess of equipment and you know that you’ll be spending a lot of time twiddling the controls to keep it running. This was me quite a while ago. I spent most of a four hour watch period in a never ending feedback loop, chasing my own tail. I’d tweak a control then run around and check gauges. Tweak a few more controls, check again. I never really managed to extract myself out of the loop by achieving an ideal set-up as the dynamics were constantly changing. It turned me off a career as an engineer.

Now consider the same piece of complicated machinery. Instead of having to run around a noisy, hot, dirty engine room there’s an air conditioned control room with a window and a coffee maker. All the information you require is right there on a screen. The multitude of controls have been semi-automated. Instead the Engine Control Room program running the whole show pops up decisions from time to time. It tells you that something is out of whack and asks what you’d like to do about it? Instead of drowning in micromanagement you are making high level decisions and letting the ECP take care of the details.

It would, however, be unwise to be lulled into a false sense of security. The Engine Control Program, left on it’s own, will, sooner or later, bring everything to a grinding, screeching halt, typically followed by a fire. You still need to know what you’re doing. You’re still in charge, all that’s changed is that the system allows you to concentrate on the decisions that matter rather than spamming you with micromanagement irrelevancies.

Which is the game.

Decisions that matter. Strong feedback. Micromanagement not found at this address.

It actually goes further than simply providing a bunch of decisions. The focus of the game has shifted. The game has been streamlined. The number of units on the map has been reduced to the minimum number required for the AI to function effectively. Entire sub systems have been abstracted. The composition of units has been reshaped and smoothed over.

About now you’ll be reading this and thinking that the game has been turned into the kiddies version of War and Peace, that there’s no longer a game there, not a real man’s game.


Real men, men that slurp straight whiskey out of a dirty glass and spit ‘baccy onto the floor, would be happy to play this game. There are detailed and complex underlying mechanics. Right down to worrying about the supply of tires for your truck columns.

What there isn’t is micromanagement. What there is are decisions. Decisions without the fiddly bits.

Take the Tires as an example. It’s a good one to use as, on a scale of one to ten for potentially interesting game decisions, it would be down there among the dead men. If I had to pick the most boring decision in the game, Tires would be it.

Who the heck wants to be bothered by Tires? How can that be made even vaguely interesting? Does it even matter?

Lets see how successful the game is at turning Tires into something you might want to care about.

(click image to enlarge)

Up front you’ve got a report from General Wagner, your Quartermaster General. Over to the right in the Report Bundle are other reports. There are always at least two, often more, and they can be supplemented by a range of other messages. Here’s the second one.

(click image to enlarge)

This one is from Mr. Funk. He’s sounding stressed. As befits a person with such an unfortunate surname.

A couple of reports from interested parties have reached your desk and a decision is required. Note that there is little agreement on a way forward. This is typical of a decision. If it was straightforward and obvious, your staff would have already taken care of it. As you’re the man in charge you get to resolve the curly ones.

If you glance back to the first screenshot you can see a range of options down the bottom left. For Tires it’s a case of who do you give them to? Why is there a choice anyway?

Historically the Germans divided Russia into three distinct theatres.


Decisive Campaigns 3: Barbarossa, with its strong operational focus, enforces these boundaries. Three theatres, each with their own command structure, their own logistical system, air, artillery, internal security systems, etc. Units from one theatre wandering into adjoining theatres will cause your organisational fabric to rend and tear.

Yes, it’s possible to shift a Panzergruppe from one theatre to another, as was done at the time, but you’ll need to obtain permission first. That’s a decision.

Back to the Tires. Three theatres, each of them in need of tires but there’s only enough tires to supply one.

Well that’s a resource allocation decision which is a bit more interesting but I’m sure that Tires still haven’t lit your fire.

Have another look at the first screenshot. The options. If there are three theatres then why do the costs differ? Surely it would be the same cost for each?

Here’s why.

(click image to enlarge)

Each decision has a full breakdown of why a particular option costs what it does. You can see different factors at play here. There is a base cost. This is fixed. Costs vary depending on what level of time and Command Authority are required on your part. A base cost of 3 Political Points is considered a low level decision.

Cost is important because you have a limited amount of Political Points. Not enough to go around. There are considerable demands on your time and authority and you’ll have to pick and choose where to spend your limited command resources.

Any decisions that you don’t get around to making are delegated down to your Chief of Staff who will make a decision on your behalf. Perhaps not the one you’d prefer. Will he win the war for you if left on his own? Like the Engine Control Program, it won’t end well.

Talking Tires, the first decision is whether you’ll even want to deal with it personally or whether you’d be best to delegate. How important are Tires? On their own, not much but your truck columns don’t tend to go very far without them. These are the same truck columns that are currently shuttling fuel to your Panzergruppes from your Forward Supply Bases.

Let’s assume that you feel the need to take control of the Great Tire Crisis yourself. Decisions generally involve you asking/ordering/requesting somebody to take a course of action, in this case, your Quartermaster, General Wagner.

If you glance back at the Option Cost breakdown above you see that your Good relationship with General Wagner has resulted in a cheaper cost. He’s happy to help.

The game tracks your relationship with a number of key characters and where you sit on the relationship spectrum has significant ramifications.

Let’s take a look at the cost of resolving the Tires conundrum at a time when General Wagner is no longer sending you birthday cards.

(click image to enlarge)

Tires, and all other decisions involving General Wagner, have suddenly become a major drama. Because your working relationship has effectively broken down it will take a greater amount of your time to cajole him into doing something that he’d rather not.

The technical term for this is Command Friction but you can experience it at home. Ask your better half to pass the salt to you at the dinner table tonight. You’ll either get handed the salt shaker with a smile or be rapidly calculating incoming ballistic trajectories depending on your relationship level.

Well if Tires are that important you could resolve to remain in General Wagner’s good books. Which is achievable but at a cost of other relationships. There is a war on. People are under pressure. They have their own agendas, their own priorities. There are underlying fault lines in the historical command structure of the Wehrmacht that virtually guarantee that not everybody will get along.

Assume that you’ve given the Tires to Armeegruppe Zentrum. They’ll be happy. But the commanders of AGN and AGS may not be. Relationships will change. Choose to do nothing and General Wagner might get upset at the lost opportunity.

Then there is the Führer. You’ll notice the option costs are affected by his strategic vision of what you should be doing in Russia. An option in line with his thinking will be easier to achieve, decision wise than one that contradicts his preferred approach.

In both the above examples he has similar priorities but this isn’t a given. He’ll call conferences from time to time to discuss overall strategy. His priorities will change. There are opportunities to influence his thinking. More on this later.

The Tires decision is one that will pop up occasionally depending on available rubber stocks. Each time it occurs you’ll have a different relationship with General Wagner. The Führer will be leaning this way or that. Other factors, not show could be in play. Your need for Tires in a particular theatre will vary as will your relationships with the three theatre commanders. Your pool of available command resources (PP’s) may be adequate or nothing but a stagnant, frozen pond.

Each time you play the game the decision over Tires will vary. This isn’t a decision system that devolves down into a puzzle that needs to be solved in order to find the correct path. It’s extremely dynamic and deliberately designed to keep you juggling more balls than you can handle. It’s inevitable that you’ll drop some.

But that’s Operational Command.

If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.


This entry was posted in DC:Barbarossa, Game Design. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Let’s Talk about Tires

  1. Jafele says:

    Good day Cameron. I really love the original concept of the game. Decisions are the destiny of real commanders in campaigns. Guess DC3 will be an enjoyable game, I mean that rare kind of game you´ll never uninstall from your hard disk.

    The idea reminds me a bit “Panzer General 2″ (today “Panzer Corps”), which I spent endless hours playing. One day I got tired of PG2. Why? There was no replayability, once you have played the campaigns a few times you knew how to win. On another note supply rules were extremely simplistic, that doesn´t make me feel like a commander. Obviously DC3 is more realistic and with a more complex supply system.

    For sure not complex rules means a more efficient and challenging AI: That means replayability. My dream would be a wargame full of replayability, fluid and easy to see supply system, nice graphics (no necessarily spectacular), realistic but without micromanagements and the most important point: endless fun. Not an easy formula but possible.

    Sadly, some “serious” wargamers still think a wargame is a noisy, hot, dirty engine room where you spend most of your time fighting against the gauges, fun is secondary for them.


  2. bearro says:

    You mention number of units… so what is the planned number of units under players control? After playing DC1/2 and reading about 3 being Barbarossa I was expecting a huge number, have you got at least a rough estimate?

  3. Cameron Harris says:

    Hi Bearro,

    German side is a couple of hundred, Russian side more. There is a greater emphasis on individual units. More detail.


  4. Roy says:

    Love these informative posts. I’m actually getting enthused about this game and I’m not a big fan of historical simulations. This one actually sounds like it would be fun to play.

  5. Jafele says:

    Yeah, it sounds like a funny thing. Traditionally historical wargames are huge monsters difficult to manage. However, a historical game can be theorically realistic and funny at the same time, a good example is “Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm”: a game with challenging AI (non-scripted) and without micromanagements. IMO one of the few classic wargames published in the last ten years.

    According to Cameron posts DC3 will be very innovative. Also both Vic and Cameron are very imaginative developers, so I´m optimistic about the future. Realism is not micromanagement but frequently an excess of realism brings micromanagements, there are plenty of wargames ruined because of this. As I said once if you want to learn history read a book; if you want to enjoy play a game or watch a movie. Too many people think a movie or a game is history book.

    In other words: A good game must be funny, a good history book must be realistic. If the game is also realistic or the book is also funny then much better, of course.

  6. Rasputitsa says:

    Strongly agree that micromanagement is not realism and very interested in the concepts going into DC3, thanks for information coming out of this blog, it’s all very encouraging.

    Replay value is going to come from variation and although there is a controlling higher authority setting a strategic framework for player decisions, it would be good to have various options where this framework can be changed with alternative scenarios. Some historic scenarios, but other strategic variants to add interest in a replay.

  7. Jafele says:

    Basically there are no games with challenging AI, that´s the reason why most of the games available are really efficient in MP but not so in SP games. There is replayability against other persons, however never playing alone.

    Efficient and imaginative rules are always welcome, but without the magic of the AI the game have an expiration date. It would be great a game with a powerful engine that make you enjoy playing alone. If DC3 is able to do it that would be a really innovative game. Absolutely.

  8. Chris says:

    Sorry but I have a lot questions. Will the Soviet player be given decisions to make? Will supply be just total points or will it be broken down by Food, Ammunition and Fuel? Will combat results be given in numbers instead of icons which you have to manually count to see total losses. Will the unit graphics still have the cartoon look? I’m concerned about the hexes being 30 km. A 1000 km front would be 33 hexes. Is this going to be at corps level? When can we see some screen shots? I’m looking forward to this new game.

  9. Cameron Harris says:

    Hi Chris,

    Yep, that’s a lot of questions.

    The supply system is detailed – predominately ammunition and fuel. The Soviets are still a work in progress. The look is similar to DC2. The 30km hex scale works well with Division sized unit. Screenshots will be forthcoming.


  10. Rasputitsa says:

    A 30 Kms hex size is similar to the scale of ‘War in Russia’, which I found worked well. The units were Korps/Army size, but with Divisions and also Brigade size units, which could be added to the Korps, or Army/Army Group HQs. I don’t expect this game to be a copy of WIR, but the scale seems OK, the alternative is to be like ‘War in the East’, which on just too small a scale, with too many units, to do the whole of the vast Eastern Front easily.

    Will you be able to have more than one division represented in each 30 Km hex ?

    Screen shots would help to explain a lot and eagerly awaiting a view of the game.

  11. Cameron Harris says:

    Hi Rasputitsa,

    Divisions can stack.

  12. Rasputitsa says:

    Thanks Cameron, so the proposed scale of the game looks good for the size of the campaign front, heading towards the sweet spot you mentioned, not too big, not too small, looking forward to the screen shots.

  13. Rasputitsa says:

    Any more news on progress, anticipation is gnawing ?

Leave a Reply