Introducing Wargame Design Studios

[GerryM]

Also, remember the whole discussion about Disruption and broken results ?

Will you work on this mechanic ?
Currently we still see that units can be pushed in a unrealistic fashion.
40 men platoons who are down to 12 men, which would mean 75% casualties are still able to fight without being permanently disrupted or broken in PzB which is highly unrealistic.

I was told that these units are "ineffective" but the AI will still throw them at you which kills the immersion for me.

First congratulations to you David and Co. Sounds like a great development.

Second I am also wondering about wiggum's question. I just found it unrealistic when a much reduced unit in a bunker could keep a huge force at bay.

Also will the defense be able to fire at will at every attacking unit. This to me creating a disproportionate amount of defensive fire. I think one of the ideas was to stop gamey tactics like trucks being driven in front to absorb fire. But the way it was when I played it results in a situation where the defensive fire volume was way too high relative to the attacker.

Thanks.

[Xaver]

I think is more critical improve the AI target selection... i find more frustrating when enemy attack on his turn your full company unit at 1 hex of distance but defensive fire come from a far unit with lower firepower...

I dont dislike actual defensive fire system with infinite shots but as i said until AI select better targets... and support units like MG smaller units have bigger impact in defense...

Bunkers... maybe we can see in future a way to select "rear" for them to made flank bunkers and attack their "door" help destroy faster small defensive units.

I cant wait to know more about future of serie, even when i doubt we see something until late 2017

[Xaver]

Is up an article about hotkeys icons, i find them a little strange for example the save game icon, i want my floppy disk back 

http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2016/...tool-bars/
Oooo and i enter in the "to be announced" area... trolls, playing with our little heart 

[wiggum]

Second I am also wondering about wiggum's question. I just found it unrealistic when a much reduced unit in a bunker could keep a huge force at bay.

Also will the defense be able to fire at will at every attacking unit. This to me creating a disproportionate amount of defensive fire. I think one of the ideas was to stop gamey tactics like trucks being driven in front to absorb fire. But the way it was when I played it results in a situation where the defensive fire volume was way too high relative to the attacker.

Thanks.

Historically, very few casualties would be needed to have a whole platoon bogging down on a attack.
That units which suffered over 75% casualties keep attacking is highly unrealistic as long as we dont talk pure fanatics (which would maybe apply to some Japanese units).

On the defense, units that took huge casualties, for example over 50% should be permanently DISRUPTED at least to simulate a break down in Command and Control as well as moral.

This whole system needs some serious work !

[Xaver]

The point is that Tiller games have a big count in casualties area... in short time you can eat a lot of casualties... i think that units with "heavy" damage continue fighting is necesary to the actual game aproximation (or you destroy the unit or is going to be in combat behind a problem for your advance)... the only way to change this is reduce number of casualties in combat and that units could be pushed back playing with lower body count numbers... fatigue, % of casualties that like you said leave units in permanent disrupted status... but do this needs introduce how merge soldiers of out of combat units with units in combat to help game not have a lot of useless units after a short combat.

If you read about combats many times survivors of diferent units join in an add-hoc unit to create a combative unit that at least can hold terrain and cover it.

[wiggum]

Maybe introduce a straggler mechanic.
Units which took more then 75% casualties become permanently Disrupted (high quality units) or Broken (low quality units) and always Isolated (to simulate the breakdown of Command&Control over the remaining men).
Also, they become "straggler" formations which can be picked up and absorbed by any other friendly HQ.

If you move a HQ on the same hex as the straggler unit, the straggler counter gets removed and the remaining men get added to friendly units that belong to the HQ that "revived" the straggler unit with a delay of randomly between 1 and 3 turns.

If such a straggler unit gets assaulted by the enemy, it gets dissolved immediately (assault will always be successful) and counts as POW's.

I think that would be much more realistic as the current mechanic.

[Strela]

Also, remember the whole discussion about Disruption and broken results ?

Will you work on this mechanic ?
Currently we still see that units can be pushed in a unrealistic fashion.
40 men platoons who are down to 12 men, which would mean 75% casualties are still able to fight without being permanently disrupted or broken in PzB which is highly unrealistic.

I was told that these units are "ineffective" but the AI will still throw them at you which kills the immersion for me.

First congratulations to you David and Co. Sounds like a great development.

Second I am also wondering about wiggum's question. I just found it unrealistic when a much reduced unit in a bunker could keep a huge force at bay.

Also will the defense be able to fire at will at every attacking unit. This to me creating a disproportionate amount of defensive fire. I think one of the ideas was to stop gamey tactics like trucks being driven in front to absorb fire. But the way it was when I played it results in a situation where the defensive fire volume was way too high relative to the attacker.

Thanks.

Firstly Gerry,

Great to see you mate - you have obviously been lurking of late....!

A lot of the conversations here are around losses vs disruptions etc, We won't be changing anything until we get some decent logging mechanisms that allow us to understand how the code handles these things.

John writes REALLY solid code, but you have to understand there are some segments that are approaching 20 years old. One example, we queried the combat report that appears when you turn the 'On Map' results off. Ricky B, Chris Haigh and I tried to reconcile the values we were calculating to what was being shown. Guess what - they didn't align. The code worked properly but the reporting didn't. We want to understand how the code works and then run a decent number of simulations to understand the range of values generated. Berto is building a logging system so we can understand how the code works, where the bugs are and then to run multiple simulations with it.

We don't want to start changing things in the depths of the code until we understand it and even then we find that tweaking values in the parameter files may give us what we're looking for. This really is a feature rich engine and we want to really understand it before making any significant changes.

My aim is that we will be as transparent as we can be (hence the blog on the new website) but we need a little breathing space as we get setup and educated.

As far as unlimited defensive fire. I can understand both sides of the argument. Personally, I think it works - the attacker has to think about mass to overcome any section of the defensive line and that means either bringing more firepower to the party or using smoke etc to block as many defensive fires as possible. Limiting defensive fire results in a big shift towards the attacker, in my opinion.

David

[Strela]

Is up an article about hotkeys icons, i find them a little strange for example the save game icon, i want my floppy disk back 

http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2016/...tool-bars/
Oooo and i enter in the "to be announced" area... trolls, playing with our little heart 

The 'Save Icon' is a hard disk drive....

It took you that long to look at 'to be announced' section, Xaver???!!!!

David

[Strela]

Maybe introduce a straggler mechanic.
Units which took more then 75% casualties become permanently Disrupted (high quality units) or Broken (low quality units) and always Isolated (to simulate the breakdown of Command&Control over the remaining men).
Also, they become "straggler" formations which can be picked up and absorbed by any other friendly HQ.

If you move a HQ on the same hex as the straggler unit, the straggler counter gets removed and the remaining men get added to friendly units that belong to the HQ that "revived" the straggler unit with a delay of randomly between 1 and 3 turns.

If such a straggler unit gets assaulted by the enemy, it gets dissolved immediately (assault will always be successful) and counts as POW's.

I think that would be much more realistic as the current mechanic.

As I said we need to understand the code before changing anything.

Once example, the game is built off Panzer Campaigns (circa 2009) which has casualty recovery. We could include recovery (stragglers) if we thought it made sense.

The code will evolve over time, but the more important debate is what is a reasonable outcome in most situations...?

This forum will, I'm certain be full of those!!!!

David

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I wish we could assign the replacement ourselves.