Prepare yourself for a wargaming tour-de-force! Conquest of the Aegean is the next generation of the award-winning and revolutionary Airborne Assault series and it takes brigade to corps-level warfare to a whole new level. Realism and accuracy are the watchwords as this pausable continuous time design allows you to command at any echelon, with smart AI subordinates and an incredibly challenging AI.
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
...you don't see how the design is reflective of strategy/tactics and the operational art??
Yes, well said!
If I have 3 infantry units and one armour together with artillery in support, they assault a solitary infantry unit, in medium (not clear) terrain the attack will fail more often than it succeeds.
In any other wargame such an overwhelming attack would succeed easily.
As in RL there is a lot more to determining the outcome of an engagement than a simple 3:1 ratio of units. The different forepower of units can be amazing. The German Inf in particular often had double the firepower of a British Inf unit.
Is the defender backed up with its own arty? Is it dug in or entrenched? What are the relative combat effectiveness of the opposing forces ( ie combat effectiveness = moreale + cohesion + fatigue ). What are the current strength values? What is the task type and formation type? What is the relative commander aggro and determination values?
Are you sure there is only one enemy unit there? Is your intel report reliable?
We did a lot of testing of engagements during the development and we tweaked and adjusted things quite abit until there was a consensus that it was right. But I'll knock up a simple test scenario and run it through a few hundred times and see what the general results are.
"Entrench" is not an order. And if an enemy infantry company is jiggling about he is clearly not entrenched.
As to combat power:
1 = 1
2 = 2 x 1
3 = 2 x 2 which in real life = 4
4 = 3 x 2 which in real life = 6
So comparing 1 to 4 does not equal 4:1 instead it = 6:1
Can't fathom why the programmer did it this way [&:]
What a shame that you can't get into it, Joe 98.
I think it's very clear from your posts that itt's a bit more than that; you just don't like it! AND why should you? We can't all like the same things.
However, I think a list of things that stop AA being identical to the games you DO like is rather self defeating. From your banner you clearly like DB and so do I but I wouldn't want the AA engine to be the same as the DB engine or vice versa.
So I guess we are just going to agree to differ. [;)]
Cheers
Ray
Hey there... I used to be a turn based, hexagonal gamer too. And I was hooked on the levels of control I had. But since I have stepped into gaming AA/HTTR/COTA, and "let go", I have never looked back! It IS something entirely different. It is "high fidelity." I don't do "odds" calculations anymore. I don't check for stacking. I LOVE it! I just read actual infantry tactical manuals for company and battalion level and APPLY them here. The death (or outright murder) of hex and turn and odds based gaming that was accomplished here is a marvel.
Yes, there are still a few problems (minor)... and I even think I would like an "entrench" command (but I think the units do this on their own when in a combat zone).
I say, let go, an' feel it! Picture yourself as a commander in a divisional HQ. Someone who must let go of his desire to control EVERYTHING. Someone who has to delegate. And I think this is the ONLY simulation that will give you the feel for what that is like.
In fact, it is so realistic, that it is the ONLY wargame of mine that my dad ever sat down and played WITH me. He was VERY impressed (down to one minor detail). My dad was an armored company commander in cold war germany and a general's aide. So he knows "high fidelity" when he sees it (actually his words I think). For him, hex based, turn based, odds based gaming was always a toy...never worth his time. And then, one day, he saw me playing THIS. For days, he would come in an try to take Arnheim with me. He would give the orders, and I would implement them. Fun. I know it doesn't prove that the models used in the combat algorithms are precisely right. But it does say one hell of a lot. I had been trying to get my dad to game with me for years, and it took the AA/COTA system to do it.
Chris[;)]
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Ultimately I am trying to figure out what it is I don't get.
I do understand, and know the feeling. (I have real problems with wargames dealing with now, or the future. I just don't get them and I can't tell you why.)
But whatever your problem with AA, it can't be the strength calculations or digging-in commands or any other minor quibble! Incidentally, Chris, above, is right, units do dig in automatically ... er, one of the long standing complaints about DB, if I remember correctly. [;)]
Cheers
Ray
Well, maybe, you just don't like it. There is nothing wrong with that. I think we are just trying to tell you what we see in it.
CC...that WAS cool. I played that a heck of a lot too. [:)]
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
Don't give up yet mate. We Aussies got to stick together! [:)]
Download the attachment "Attack Test.txt". It's actually a zip file. Change the name to "Attack Test.zip", unzup it and extract the Attack Test scenario. Place it in your Scenarios folder. Launch COTA and choose Elasson::Attack Test.
This is a very simple scenario but comes with three different options, depending on which reinforcement schedules you use. Each has one reinforced inf Bn attacking a single enemy company. Read the briefing for details.
Start with the Standard Axis and Standard Allied schedules. This pits a German Inf Bn + a Pz Coy against an Aussie Inf Coy. Play as the Allies and order your Inf coy to defend in the orchard where it starts. The enemy will advance and launch an assault to secure the objective ( ie where you are ). In every test I ran the Germans pushed the lone Au Inf Coy off the objective.
Then try the Favour Allies/Favour Allies reinf schedules. This pits an Aussie Inf Bn + Arm Coy against a German Inf Coy. Note that the German Inf Coy lasts longer, because it is significantly stronger in APerFP than the corresponding Au inf Coy. However, eventually it will get booted off ( well it should ).
Lastly use the Favour Axis/Favour Axis reinf schedules and this is the same but this time the German Inf Coy defending should have sufficient time to entrench in the fort as the Allies start further away. Don't worry if the Allies take some time, they may even rest/reorg on the way. This will be a much tougher affair but the Allies should prevail eventually.
Re Combat Power - the CP valuies displayed in the unit Info Box are not used in combat resolution but are provided only as a guide. They don't factor in terrain or anything else other than firepower, armour and unit effectiveness.
In general, don't get too hung up in the odds. Work on the usual military maxim that 3:1 force ratio will get you home. However, it's just not a question of firepower or combat power. You need to be aware that many other factors go into it. If you line up a Bn against a company, you will generally win. However, effectiveness, terrain and supplies are very important. They act as force multipliers/dividers. Sometimes you may need to throw a whole Bde into a fortified enemy company that is very stubborn, with high morale and backs of experience, especially if your troops are low grade, tired or running low on ammo.
Try the Attack Test scenario and let me know how you go. If you really get stuck email me and we can arrange to talk on the phone.
BTW for the rest of you users, I knocked up that test scenario in about an hour or so. It's very easy to work up something small like that in the ScenMaker. I started with one of the Template scenarios, but realised I had to keep the size down, so I simply exported force lists for the German 50th Inf Div, 33rd Pz Regt, Au 6 Inf Div and Brit 1st Arm Bde. I then created a new scenario using the Crete estab file and the Elasson map, created a supreme force for each side and imported the force lists. Then I placed one Secure Objective for each side and gave it some victory points.
I could of then just dragged the units onto the map, saved and ran it, but I wanted to have the options of the different force mixes. To do this all I did was create a reinf schedule for each side, drag the force(s) onto it and then drag the new reinf item onto the map to set the arrival location. I created three schedules per side, one for each type. These really do provide a tremendous range of options and can provide a scenario with great replayability.
So have a go guys! [:)]
Absolutely positively the singlemost outstanding piece of customer service I have ever seen/heard of from a designer/developer in over 30 years of wargaming in miniatures/boardgames/computers. Way to go....... [&o]
Notwithstanding though, I still want AA units that interfere with airstrikes, the ability to capture some supplies, and (even a limited) improvement in the ability to better coordinate player controlled complex assaults!!!! [:D]
Regards,
Rob. [:)]
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
Notwithstanding though, I still want AA units that interfere with airstrikes, the ability to capture some supplies, and (even a limited) improvement in the ability to better coordinate player controlled complex assaults!!!! [:D]
Hehe, you keep advertising your personal wishlist.....
Hm...while we're at it, what you said PLUS friendly (arty) fire !! [:D]
"Aw Nuts" General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big." Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
A few quick points as my time is limited these days ...
(1) Have you tried reading my mini-guides? I realize that they are long are not very well structured, but at the core, they give a very good sense of what the game is about and how one can approach playing it.
(2) Playing a specific game within a certain genre is like learning to effectively speaking another language. There will definitely be common constructs and certain familiar aspects. However, at some point, the native speaker of English has to stop trying to translate English to Chinese, and instead start thinking and constructing their utterances in Chinese as any native Chinese would. Until the English speaker makes that transition, Chinese will always seem awkward, confusing, and cumbersome. Despite your many years of playing other games within this genre, you need to make a transition where you start to play COTA as COTA as opposed to some other game which you speak as your native language.
(3) When all said and done, it is perfectly acceptable and possible that this series might not be for you. Everyone is different and not everyone will find beauty and enjoyment in the same things. Ultimately, your issue may not be a learning curve, but simply one of personal taste and preference.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
This may or may not convince you that COTA/HTTR is your cup of tea, but the following is to explain why I believe they are the finest simulations of command available on a PC.
Let's start with what a commander does in the real world, and the difference between planning and execution.
The commander has some kind of mission from higher: accomplish the following tasks, within a given timeframe, with given forces and assets.
The commander and staff proceed to analyze the mission, the expected enemy, the terrain, the available troops, and the available time to formulate a plan.
Traditional wargames support planning decently well - no better and no worse than HTTR/COTA. You can sit back and analyze courses of action, allocate forces to missions, and generally prioritize and synchronize. The change comes when we begin executing the mission.
During mission execution, the commander spends a lot of time sitting back and watching events unfold. From the perspective of a person watching the commander, it's possible not much is going on that's visible.
A great deal should be going on in that commander's head, though:
* Is the plan still capable of accomplishing the mission?
* Are friendly forces doing what the plan requires?
* Is the enemy doing what the plan predicts?
If the answer to any of these is "no", the the commander has a problem.
In addition, the commander should be continually looking for leading indicators that the answer to one of those questions is going to be "no" at some point in the future, and trying to figure out how to avert that "no" answer. This includes not only the current situation, and projected results from it, but also potential contingencies.
There's a comment of Napoleon's that runs something like: When I command a battle, I am continually asking myself: what would I do if the enemy appeared in a new location (flank, rear, etc). If I do not have an answer to this questions, I know I am in trouble and need to find an answer.
Thus, the commander has a continual process of visualizing the future state of the battlefield - knowing that if troops are going to be moved in response to changing developments, there will be delays on getting those troops into position, not only from time to move, but from the staff planning time necessary to get them moving as something other than a disorganized mob.
This is where HTTR/COTA shines: it puts the player squarely in the Visualize, Describe, Direct cycle a commander experiences: visualize the future state (and potential states) of the battlefield; Describe to subordinates the actions necessary to shape the future state into a positive outcome; and Direct the execution of those described missions.
The command delays *force* players to conduct future visualization: often, an enemy breakthrough happening now can't be countered for several hours. These delays make OODA loops a real and active participant in the battle; not just those in the simulation's delays, but in the commander's heads. A player who becomes reactive to events, instead of proactive in shaping them, is lost. (A few boardgames also do this through delays orders mechanisms, notably the Civil War and WW2 tactical games by The Gamers (MMP).)
The player is not encumbered with moving each and every unit: instead, the player issues missions: assigning objectives and resources to subordinates. Because Panther's AI commands units well (unlike that of multi-million dollar programs which will remain nameless), the player does not need to get involved in micromanagement.
Instead, having described the missions to subordinates, the player can sit back and direct operations: sitting back, watching events unfold, and continually trying to answer the questions:
* Is the plan still capable of accomplishing the mission?
* Are friendly forces doing what the plan requires?
* Is the enemy doing what the plan predicts?
If the answer to any of these is "no", the the player has a problem.
In addition, the player is continually looking for leading indicators that the answer to one of those questions is going to be "no" at some point in the future, and trying to figure out how to avert that "no" answer. This includes not only the current situation, and projected results from it, but also potential contingencies.
If by "firendly artillery fire" you mean friendly artillery fire mistakenly falling on friendly forces that is already in the game in at least one form. I am not sure if if ever happens when you let the AI command the artillery, but it has great potential to happen if you take command yourself and assign a fire mission of substantial duration. That artillery unit is going to complete the fire mission regardless of whether or not friendly units have entered it's fire zone.
Their is also great unpredictability coupled with airstrikes. I have struck my own units many, many times because I chose a target my ground forces were closing on and the delay in committment of the strike caught my units already on top of the enemy. I have also had air strikes mistakenly target my own companies who were within a few hundred meters of the enemy while missing the enemy altogether. The pilots apparently mistook my unit for the enemy and pounded their own troops.
The outline above by James illustrates a great part of the appeal of the game to me. It feels so much more like a command simulator and so much less like a wargame than any other wargame mechanics system I have ever encountered in 33+ years of wargaming. Dealing with the "realities" of imperfect timing and execution and unpredictable delays contribute so much to the feel of chaos and friction it almost doesn't even feel like a game anymore.
And exactly why, after 25 years of gaming, I am here.
Chris Cleveland (barbarossa2)
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
That's a lot of work, given the number of screens that will have to be programmed. One thing to realise is that the ScenMaker use the standard MFC windows, whereas the game uses our customised Panther GUI. This ensures everything has the same consistent look. Besides, I reckon the best option for the game is to split the E&S Tab view in half and display the estab data for the item selected from the list in the bottom half.
We need more sales so I can hire another programmer! [:)]
Dave,
Thank you very much for your explanation !!
However I want to emphasize that in my opinion adding access to the equipment photograph, description and capabilities (currently included in the scenario editor), by double clicking the equipment name when playing the game, will greatly enhance the inmersion factor and the accesibility to the game for a lot of people. This feature could be not so important for the players that are experts in WWII, but it would certainly help a lot for the players that have a not so deep knowledge on WWII equipment. For these last players I think this feature would make the game much more accesible and attractive. Moreover, in its current state, the game can feel too abstract for those that don´t have the deep knowledge required on WWII equipment. Having quick access to the equipment photographs and characteristics while in game would increase the inmersion factor a lot.
In my opinion, this feature should be very high on the priority list if we want to attract more players to this already excelent game series.
If by "firendly artillery fire" you mean friendly artillery fire mistakenly falling on friendly forces that is already in the game in at least one form. I am not sure if if ever happens when you let the AI command the artillery, but it has great potential to happen if you take command yourself and assign a fire mission of substantial duration. That artillery unit is going to complete the fire mission regardless of whether or not friendly units have entered it's fire zone.
Actually, no. The AI even if given a bombard order will suspend the barrage with a note of "friendlies in the way". Friendly fire casualties is only possible via airstrikes.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
