What-ifs - wildness or reality?

[T-28A]

Hi guys,

Do any of you have some strong appreciation or strong dislike about what-ifs in general and CmdOps in particular? Do you like when they alter the reality a lot, aimed at much more fun gameplay? Or do you like when they provide only minor alternatives, without much alteration? If an original scenario is generally harder for side A, would you like to have also the what-if scenario that balances it and makes chances even, or makes things harder for side B?
Any thoughts are welcome.

Best regards

[Terminus]

I can't speak for the Command Ops series, but in general, I prefer mods that are solidly grounded in reality. They can be big or small, but there has to be realism.

[RockinHarry]

"What ifs" like the "small solution" of Herbstnebel or "Sea Lion" maybe? Definitely something I´d like to play. [:)]

[simovitch]

I don't care for "what if's" and only end up playing them if I really like the game and I've run out of historical scenarios.

Another exception is for tutorial purposes.

[wodin]

There are a few what if's that come with BftB. I do like the idea of Sealion I suppose. I alos like the idea of say choosing you drop zones in the HTTR and CotA. However I'm not sure about balancing a game through evening up the troops. I'd say the best way to balance a scenario is through points. Yes side A is expected to be battered, but if they manage to inflict so and so casualties they will win or if they manage to hold up the enemy for a certain amount of time. Thats how a well balanced scenario that would be historical is made.

[freeboy]

I like what if.. adds veriety.. either as new scens or events ingame

[Arimus]

Both!

[JiminyJickers]

I definitely want what ifs. I like historical too but what if is the reason I play games and not just read history books.

[Phoenix100]

I've never played a 'what-if' scenario in either HTTR, COTA or BFTB/HTTR, save tutorials. I do, however, tamper with the sliders to 'even it up' a bit whilst repeat playing a scenario to figure out what I can and can't do - but what I want to do is run the exact historical scenario and see if I can get a different outcome. I'd be happy if you didn't do any in the EF game, T-28A.

[wodin]

I'm actually more happy to have what ifs in the EF game than say the Bulge. Not sure why but I am. Maybe because MG and the Bulge are so imprinted on memory that a what if stands out, where as the battles around Chir I would to be honest non the wiser if a smaller battle was historical or not.

[Phoenix100]

For the same reason - ignorance - I thought it would be nicer to stick to history - so I could learn...

[Arjuna]

Interesting discussion guys.

In a way every scenario is a what if. While it may start with an historical snapshot, once underway things have a knack of playing out differently due to the large number of variables at play, not to mention the player decisions. The odds of things unfolding exactly as they did historically are very low indeed.

With patch #2 we introduced the additional "historical" reinforcement schedule. This gives us four types now - historical, standard, favour us and favour them. There is now plenty of scope to design a scenario with a definite historical set of forces and deployments while at the same time having three options for alternative force lists and deployments. So we can have our cake and eat it too. There is nothing to stop you from saving a scenario under a different name and adding additional reinf schedules as you see fit. If there are multiple schedules of the same type one will be chosen randomly when you start to play the scenario.

You can use these alternate schedules to have the same force listbut start in different locations. For instance, you can use this aspect to model different drop zones for para forces. If you want to have them land closer to the objective at Arnhem, then create a schedule that sees the paras land near the arnhem bridge. You can have multiple schedules so that the enemy never knows exactly where the paras will be landing. This adds more realism than a predefined set of DZs.

Personnally, I like having some mystery to the battle. I find it more challenging and so that's why I like what-ifs. But each to their own. [:)]

[jomni]

I want balance games, not necessarily change the forces invovled.   If the battle is historically lop-sided, then victory conditions should be adjusted.  If not, it's no fun to play for both sides for me.  But I'm also ok with What-If's.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: jomni

I want balance games, not necessarily change the forces involved.   If the battle is historically lop-sided, then victory conditions should be adjusted.  If not, it's no fun to play for both sides for me.  But I'm also ok with What-If's.

Same as I mentioned further up, I agree. A good scenario designer will set victory conditions to make the game winnable by a force who will be battered during the game, by trying to be abit less battered than historically or holding on that bit longer than historically etc, that's what I call balance, not a balance in force ratio...

[Perturabo]

I liked the "capture the flag" scenarios in RDoA.

[emeg]

ORIGINAL: T-28A

Hi guys,

Do any of you have some strong appreciation or strong dislike about what-ifs in general and CmdOps in particular? Do you like when they alter the reality a lot, aimed at much more fun gameplay? Or do you like when they provide only minor alternatives, without much alteration? If an original scenario is generally harder for side A, would you like to have also the what-if scenario that balances it and makes chances even, or makes things harder for side B?
Any thoughts are welcome.

Best regards

Computer simulations/games are a great tool to imitate what-if scenario's. I don't have problems with the what-ifs scenarios as long as the game developers inform us that these scenarios are what they are and the realistic scenario's also exist in the game/simulation. But, if the developers of a realistic wargame/simulation inform us that the have done an impressive job regarding the realism than I expect this realism.

The as much as possible realism don't exist regarding the major Arnhem road network in CO HTTR. More realism is for me, being born and grown up in Arnhem and, up to today always living in the proximity of Arnhem, important to enjoy the CmpOps HTTR game/simulation. Regarding the city centre of Arnhem I am somewhat dissapointed in the CO HTTR gamemap. The most of it is correct, but I miss the in September 1944 still existing pontoon bridge, code named Putney, located close near the since 1977 existing Nelson Mandela Bridge. Putney was in the initial marching orders for B Company of John Frost 2nd battalion the target to cross the Rhine and (being already on the southern riverbank) to take the southern access of the traffic bridge, code named Waterloo. Further, regarding the Arnhem centre, there are some roads of the second of third importance represented on the gamemap, But the seperated lanes of the boulevard Jansbinnen and Jansbuitensingel and the traffic square Willemsplein, both of fundamental significance in the Arnhem road network, don't exist on the gamemap.

[T-28A]

Thank you guys for all your answers, please keep them coming, this helps a lot when learning others' opinions.

ORIGINAL: emeg
The as much as possible realism don't exist regarding the major Arnhem road network in CO HTTR. More realism is for me, being born and grown up in Arnhem and, up to today always living in the proximity of Arnhem, important to enjoy the CmpOps HTTR game/simulation.

As a person living in the place which time to time gets into scenarios too, I agree with you that some mapping mistakes could look (and in many cases they are) very obvious and silly. But also being one who designs scenarios time to time, I should note that we foreigners usually rely on maps only, and these maps are happen to be inconsistent and/or incorrect and/or missing some areas' details - much more often than most of us would want. Especially for the map scale as detailed as CmdOps requires. So please be gracious and don't judge these mistakes too strictly, I believe if you contact scenario developer(s) directly they would be happy to provide necessary corrections that might get into next patches.

Cheers [:)]

[Arjuna]

Yes point taken about the mapping. As T-28A says we rely on the official WW2 maps. Where we know from our reading of an obvious error with the maps we will take this into account. So please advise where you can. Also please remember that we are working to a 100m grid and this imposes a certain amount of abstraction. This is especially so in built up areas. If we model every street you end up[ with an open football field effect as far as LOS, terrain and moveemnt are concerned. So some compromise is necessary.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: emeg

Regarding the city centre of Arnhem I am somewhat dissapointed in the CO HTTR gamemap. The most of it is correct, but I miss the in September 1944 still existing pontoon bridge, code named Putney, located close near the since 1977 existing Nelson Mandela Bridge.

The pontoon bridge was aerial photographed "intact" on September 10th, but reported damaged on September 17th. The rail bridge is there anyway so even the potential of a crossing point was left out. Depends on who you talk to I guess.

But the seperated lanes of the boulevard Jansbinnen and Jansbuitensingel and the traffic square Willemsplein, both of fundamental significance in the Arnhem road network, don't exist on the gamemap.

In Command Ops, If a designer puts too many roadways in a town, the objects on that layer wipe out the urban defensive benefits of the town itself. Many, many towns on both HTTR and BFTB are missing roads that I'm sure the locals would find "dissapointing".[:)]

[wodin]

I think some forget the scale of the game.

in a squad level game you will have every street modelled. You wouldn't have it in a game at this scale.