Introducing Wargame Design Studios

[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