Thinking about larger battles.........

[Jeff Conner]

I remember that Rich and I talked a bit about being able to change the maximum visibility during a scenario for Falklands. I wanted to do the whole Goose Green battle in one scenario. I believe that John Tiller was willing to discuss the possibility, but it didn't get included. Perhaps he has the time to add that feature to the engine now.

Another way to deal with scenarios that cover multiple days is to break them down into a series of linked scenarios. The OOB and perhaps the map would stay the same for all of the scenarios, but after each portion of the battle, the position, strength, effectiveness and supply status of the units would be modified to reflect the results of the last battle. This would be cleaner than bringing in jeeploads of rifles to reflect resupply (or waiting 50 turns for the numbers to rise through the engine). The downside is that it would require an umpire who was very familiar with the scenario editors and has the time to create new scenarios on the fly. I might be willing to try it once I get my current project completed.

One of the things that I would like to see added to SB is a campaign feature similar to those in the Napoleonic and ACW engines where losses are carried over from scenario to scenario and the results of previous game determines which scenario is played next. This would require a player to really consider the cost of gaining an objective, knowing that he is going to have to fight again the next day with the same troops.

Just my two cents worth.

Jeff

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

The problem I have with linked scenarios is as the cdr, you have no say over the deploymeny of your forces if there had been a time gap involved. If it is a short time like a couple of hours, I get it, but I have had an ACW game where I had a div get mauled in the first battle and in the second battle, the ai placed that div at the most important part of the front line in the next battle. It also placed arty in the middle of the woods with no easy escape route, so all the arty was also overrun. It just continued doing that all the way through. If x amount of time between scenarios, cdr should have the ability to redeploy his units before the next fight starts. if there was a setup phase in place for human to free deploy his units how he sees fit, then it would be a lot better.

[Jeff Conner]

That's one of the problems with AI linked scenarios. However, in this situation, the umpire would be placing units for the subsequent battles and there is no reason there couldn't be communication between the umpire and the players.

I have been thinking about this a bit and would like to try it with a smaller, single player scenario before trying to create a multi-player monster. Anyone interested in trying it out.

Jeff

[TheBigRedOne]

if there was a setup phase in place for human to free deploy his units how he sees fit, then it would be a lot better.

This has been something discussed within the framework of the design team multiple times. There aren't a lot of things that I'm certain about in life, but I am fairly certain that SB will never have a system like this. There are a few reasons, copyright infringement being one of them, if I recall correctly.

[Jeff Conner]

I agree with Alan that is unlikely that the engine will ever include a player setup feature within a scenario. But with my idea, the umpire creates a new scenario based on the results of the previous engagement. The effectiveness of units can be raised by the umpire to simulate resupply and rest. The umpire would then setup the units depending upon the orders provided by the players, creating a new scenario.

My thought was to try this with approximately battalion sized forces over a two day period. There would be at least two day battles and two night battles. If anyone is interested, I'll put together the first scenario.

Jeff

[Dog829]

Several months ago I know that Ironwulf was working on an Operation In I corps in Vietnam from 1967. I was able to furnish him with several reports that I gleaned from archived USMC records as well as some USN. And I believe USASF and one or two CIA assessments. There is a scenario covering part of this already but his goal I believe was to flush it out with as much accuracy and numbers involved as possible. I don't want to put anymore words in his mouth here since it was/is his baby. I simply shared the interest. It would also be quite large.

Umpires? Interesting, I could see it. But free deployment of units by a player being copyright infringement. Wow, I guess thats just one more of many reasons I'm not an attorney.

[Marc Bellizzi]

Jeff,

I had built a system like what you are talking about, for my Stalingrad series back in 04.

I had Greg 'Red Mike' Colman vs Frank 'MIA' Harmon battle it out over the Grain Elevator in southern Stalingrad. I based the premise off ASL's historical modules.

Each side had a core OOB of an Infantry Battalion(-) and then was provided some 'points' to spend on reinforcements between each scenario. Each bought a couple of misc support (If I recall right, I think Frank bought a StuG platoon and 2x 81mm OBA strikes & Greg bought an HMG platoon but I'm not sure anymore). Greg set his forces up on the map and then I had Frank tell me exactly where and how he wanted his units arrayed along the map-edge.
Based on the # of days the Grain Elevator was fought over in real life, would be how many 'scenarios' the guys could expect to play; there was an over-all objective (the Grain Elevator) that if the Germans took it before the number of days passed, sudden death victory - or if they never took it, then the Reds won. Otherwise Frank & I would discuss a reasonable objective for a particular scenario, etc and come to a resolution of VPs for that upcoming battle.

They played a randomly determined length scenario w/ Variable end 'on'. That made a huge difference, because no-one knew for sure when the scenario would end.
At the end of the scenario, VPs were tallied and a victor for that day determined - the victor got a few extra 'points' to spend on units for the next battle.
I even had it to where units that did something notable during the fight might get 'battle hardened' - i.e. go up a level in morale, or produce a new leader. Units that were cut off would start the next scenario isolated and reduced in effectiveness, I mean all kinds of cool stuff. And then we'd go through the process again for the next day. A bit of book keeping, but not hugely painful.

The guys told me for each scenario where to deploy their units and we'd go through the process again.

It was fun, but the biggest problem is finding someone to be the umpire; I enjoyed doing it, but judging from the lack of response to the release (and it was for AotR, a title which didn't go over the greatest when it first came out), I don't think it was used much. I had started to fiddle with making it work 'solitaire' to where a player did all of the book-keeping and had to deploy the enemy per certain tactical restrictions, but I never formally compiled it into a document like I had the H2H version. And then I got hooked on EVE Online and I'm still trying to figure out where 3 years of my life disappeared to.

I think Joao had shown some interest in the stuff I had done and he refers to it from time to time as a concept that John & the gang should have used as a template for the campaign system.

Actually, here's the doc's, feel free to peruse - there's an AAR as well - https://www.box.com/s/69660191100508aecbe5

It's funny but both Steel Panthers and Close Combat had a fairly good campaign engine that encompassed many of the elements I wanted to replicate. Those are such old titles, too.

Marc

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I don't get the copyright infringement. Games have movement and fire phases and I never heard of any copyright infringement in those areas. The umpire idea definitely has flaws, has to be able to create scenarios in the first place and then you have to figure a way to tell him where all your units are to go. I would rather have larger and longer scenarios with some sort of resupply/refit involved so as to have the entire battle/campaign on one large map to enable to have room for some kind of maneuver and added strategy. Being a squad sized battle unit, one should still have the ability to split into fire teams or even individual men if wanted to or recombined if wanted to, to be able to cover more area until more forces arrive or whatever. Should also be able to determine a squad to move up and down building levels which would change los from one level to the next to the point also that a building could have freindly forces on the first floor and enemy forces on the second floor. If more realism or something else is to be added to these games to make them better, get serious about it and look for ways to make them happen rather than excuses for them to not happen. Otherwise, this is as good as these games will get, but they could be so much better. It doesn't all have to happen overnight, just take it one step at a time.

[Marc Bellizzi]

I'm still mulling that last post over as to whether or not it's a trolling or legit.

It almost sounds like the First Person Shooter format would be better suited to capture what you are looking for. The most recent models can have 32vs32, which is essentially platoons.

I believe firmly that what you jotted down in wistful fashion with 'let it be done' like Hitler wishing armies into existence, is a bit more graphic & intelligent AI intensive than that. <edited due to miss-spelled existence>

Cutting edge FPS games have individuals on different levels, and to compensate the designers have to chop the battle area down to something akin to a few city blocks for people to play. The recently released Red Orchestra 2:Stalingrad and CodeMaster's Battlefield series are two good examples of where Squad and Platoon tactics can be employed. Unfortunately the Battlefield series didn't sell because players found the leadership aspect too cumbersome - me, I revelled in it because I was leading men, not busy 'racking up kills' like these little punks that also played only seemed to only care about. There is not enough demand for tactical games above squad size that are hyper-realistic.

Maybe I just don't understand what you wrote.

< If more realism or something else is to be added to these games to make them better, get serious about it and look for ways to make them happen rather than excuses for them to not happen. Otherwise, this is as good as these games will get, but they could be so much better. It doesn't all have to happen overnight, just take it one step at a time. >

It is happening, one step at a time; I remember my first 'digital game' was Pong. Now I look at where things are and I am amazed. When I was a young butter bar Lieutenant in the Army it took a processor the size of a bus to run the 'cutting edge' simulator, which still was hokey as hell and had graphics in 2D since 3D was too intensive (slowed the game down to eventually crash).

Sure, it isn't moving as fast as people 'would like', because humans are greedy and selfish and want things now. I blame Pandora for that and bad parenting. But when I put it in perspective, i.e. 'Pong' & that Army program that I was in awe with at the time but would laugh at now, I'm not too put-off by the pace of things - especially because if I really wanted it done that badly, I'd try and learn coding. But I'm not that smart, so I realize this drive forward moves at the pace of others. That and demand.

It's all based on that, unfortunately. The problem is that the technology is there - all one need do is check out the first person shooters I spoke of - Red Orchestra 2: Stalingrad - to see where things are for graphics and content - but there is no demand for the aspect/level/concept we play at. In other words, seeing where technology is at, if there were a worthwhile demand, the games would be there. There's just not the demand, it would seem.
[/quote]

[TheBigRedOne]

Marc hit the nail on the head in his post. Computer wargames are a very tiny niche market. We aren't talking Halo here where each game sells millions of copies.

Many of the thinks OJW mentions, different level buildings, splitting and combining units, free placement of units, have been brought up by the main scenario designers in Squad Battles in the design forum, but at the end of the day it still costs money to change the coding in his games, in a niche market where you probably won't be picking up a ton more people. Remember, it's a business. It's always easier for us to spend someone else's money.

Do I wish there were some big changes coming with the SB game engine? Sure, I do, but I know the reality of the situation. You work with what you have. Think of SB players like Marines. They make do.

As Barnes told the pot-heads in Platoon. "There's the way it oughta be, and there's the way it is."