You play as a Secretary of Armament in a fictional long-1930s scenario, where a nondescript world war is raging and you must decide how to outfit the troops. You have a certain amount of different materials and access to the labor of a certain number of workshops, and must choose to allocate that labor between tasks, while also deciding on doctrines that maximize the advantage of the equipment and minimize it's flaws. The key things you must do it
- Produce gear and research new patterns and designs
-Procure and refine raw materials
-Adjust your tactics to make the most of your equipment and minimize casualties
These factors, along with the situation on the front(s), will determine your choices. When outfitting assault troops, what type of armor offers the most reasonable protection for the least weight, material and labor? Or do you give the shock troops really nice armor at the expense of your line troops? Do you issue plated greaves to lower the number of lost legs, or do you stick to leather boots to keep mobility higher in the mud? Perhaps you can split the difference with a lightweight scaled leather boot that saves resources by using the small metal clippings left over from other processes, but then again, is more labor-intensive than just strapping on one big plate? What pattern of helmet do you use, and why? Can you afford the metal to issue frontliners with protective faceplates? Can you really afford not to, when lost eyes mean an experienced soldier is wasted? What pattern of helmets do you issue, and what's the ratio of weight/metal used/percentage of casualties prevented? How cautious or aggressive are your tactics, and can you get away with less expensive armor if you put more emphasis on fire support?
What kind of textiles are available to you, and how do you distribute them? Is it better to make everyone's uniform 20% fireproof, or would it make more sense to make specific troops 80% fireproof? What patterns of coat do you give out, and how do they fare in summer and winter? Make sure you save the breathable cotton for the desert troops and the insulating wool for the mountain regiments. Does your doctrine call for long movements? Better ensure everyone has a good capacity canteen, but not too big because ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain on the march. Do you have enough leather not to worry about gear, or will some people have to make do with cloth shoes and legwraps so that everyone can have a good belt? And what about build quality? Triple stitching and leather treatment may seem like overkill now, but if your gear pouches and harnesses can survive in the mud of no mans land long enough to be stripped from corpses and re-issued, it'll be a lot less work in the long run. Conversely, maybe you choose a uniform pattern that's a little less protective so that cloth can be saved to make more bandages. Even 5% more bandages produced over the course of the war means a lot of lives saved. Might that be worth a slight bump in temperature casualties? And what about gloves?
And that's not even getting into firearms. When an old rifle becomes obsolete, must you disassemble whole production lines, or can you find clever ways to repurpose them? Maybe do what the Soviets did in WW2, cut a rifle barrel in half to make two submachine gun barrels? That's certainly quicker, but how quick is too quick? Is it better for a squad to have two rock-solid smgs or four minimal ones? Again, maybe you can split the difference, using the cheaper weapons to fill out rear echelons and support units and free up the high quality stuff for the shock troops. But new weapons take time to train with, and do you have that kind of time? Might it be better to let an experienced unit keep their slightly obsolescent rifles that they've grown highly proficient with? For how long? Perhaps those fancy new artillery pieces can make up the difference, or the unit can be put into a low risk role while they get retrained. How stingy is too stingy when it comes to metal? You don't want a too-heavy gun, but you also don't want something flimsy enough to bend or open enough to get mud in it too easily. An overly heavy smg is less maneuverable in close combat, but make it too light and it will be hard to control on full auto, lowering the hit rate and costing you more ammo.
On and on, tradeoffs and adaptations, until you finally have a finely tuned and equipped fighting force just in time for the battlefield to change again. I'm inexperienced at game design stuff so the plus side of this is that it would mostly be programming rather than graphics or animations. Just a whole bunch of variables interacting with each other. Sounds like a nightmare to get the hang of, but maybe not too bad after. Anyway, that's my number two or three dream game idea.
I was just thinking the other day how the advent of drones and combat robots means that the pool of people physically able to contribute to a revolutionary conflict has never been wider