moving on...

[GBS]

I hope nobody minds if I bring up a few questions about the "bulge" game. I have played all the COTA scenarios , some many times. I still think it is the best "Military Command Simulation" that has ever beeen produced. Much fun.
Will the Bulge game just use new maps and OOBs with the same engine "as is" or will there be some new features like there were in COTA?
If there will be new features, will snippets be shown on this forum at some point prior to release like the new features in COTA were?
I'm just looking forward to the new game.

[Banquet]

Bulge will have minefields and road blocks as far as I know.. possibly other features too which I've forgotten about.

[MarkShot]

Given past experience with HTTR and COTA all will be revealed in good time (meaning before the actual product release). Time permitting, I will probably go for Mini-Guide #3 which will lead off with an expose AAR. At the moment, I don't know when that will be. Sorry for the lack of futher information to your query.

[wodin]

When will we hear more about the Bulge game?

[JeF]

Rooster recently updated his blog about Airborne Assault. He intends to write about his work as scenario designer on the upcoming BFTB. Hopefully, he'll leak some game features as well. At least there is already a small bit provided. [;)]

JeF.

[Arjuna]

Hi all,
 
In theory I'm still supposed to be on leave but I thought I would share with you some changes we have made to our plans for BFTB. In short we are not going to be adding minefields. Instead we are going to focus on a number of features designed to improve player immersion, involvement and control.
 
The exact feature set has not been finalised but we have narrowed it down to the following shortlist:

• UI - Unit Data - E&S Tab - Add Estab data view for equipment. This will allow you to get a better feel for what's in a unit and provide data like effective ranges etc.
• UI - AI - Task Options - Provide a series of options to ignore stragglers, ignore firebasing, ignore on-call-support, ignore retaking of defense position, ignore changing formation and to specify an initial engagement range, a NoMoveBefore time, an HHour ( for start of assaults in attacks ) and the formation move type ( either continuous, overwatch or auto ). These will allow you to exert more control over what your units do when implementing orders. They will all have defaults, so you don't need to set them. The timing fields should allow you to manually coordinate multiple attacks by setting a common HHour. The engagement range setting will allow you to set ambushes.
• UI - AI - ForceGroup Restructure - Allow cross attachments at any level. This will eventually allow us to provide an option where you can reorganise the organic order of battle. I doubt we will get to that for BFTB, but we need to make a start.
• AI - Move In Formation - Add new "continuous" formation move type that will see a large formation move continuosly rather than using the current overwatch method. With the Task Option you will be able to specify that a particular task use only continuous or overwatch or the default "auto" which will let the AI decide as and when to switch between the two. This way you can have your rear area forces moving at a good pace and then slowing down to the more cautious overwatch method once they come into contact with the enemy.
• AI - Mixed Mode Movement - Enable a force to split if only part of it can reach the objective. Currently, a mixed force will not be allowed to target an objective that cannot be reached by all of its units. This means for instance that an Inf Bn with a Mot AT Pl attached cannot be ordered to defend a wooded hill. What this new code will do is hive off the Mot AT Pl and move it to the nearest reachable RV location and continue on with the main body. The combination of options and cases gets quite hairy. So we will see how we go with this one. If it takes too much time, we may postpone this one. If it goes smoothly, we may get ambitious and also write some code to split Mot/Mech Inf units, allowing them to dismount leaving their transport element behind. This is even more complex, so we'll see how we go.
• MapMaker - A series of minor improvements, including the ability to copy and paste objects between layers ( ie lines to lines and areas to areas ).
• ScenMaker - A series of minor improvements, including the ability to set the initial stock level for units

We are almost done on the ForceGroup Restructure and have done the design for the Move in Formation code changes. So these and the Estab views and the MM Copy and Paste feature are definites. Next priority will go to the Task Options. The big question is whether we will get enough time to do the MMM Split Force changes.
 
As to when BFTB will come out, well that depends on progress. I will be in a better position to advise on this at the end of February. If all goes well it will be 2Q 07. More specific than that I don't want to commit to.

[loyalcitizen]

Thanks Arjuna!
That is an amazing list of upgrades. Can't wait.
 
As for minefields, sorry to see them go. Speaking of annoying losses... breakdowns. Certainly happened in the cold weather a fair bit. Perhaps there would be a way to just assign a small percentage chance of tiny losses for each kilometer traveled in unfriendly territory, where mines might be found, and where recovery teams can't fix frozen engines. Simulates both minefields and breakdowns in one fell swoop.
 
I'd also like to see a ROAD ONLY move order ('Quickest' often doesn't cut it) that commands a unit to stick to the roads, no matter what. Even if it means a 4 hour, 9 km long traffic jam and even in the face of enemy contact. How else are we going to simulate some of the doozy traffic jams they experienced? Or see an entire armoured column held up by a single platoon of damned Engineers? [;)]
 
 

[Banquet]

I'm really happy to see point 1. If it includes all the stuff in the scenmaker it will be great!

Speaking of immersion and involvement. My girlfriend got me Company of Heroes for Christmas. It's a bit too RTS for me on the whole but it has got some great features. One of which is the sound and voice acting. I think something like this could help in AA games. Shouts of 'we're coming under fire sir!' and various other aural feedback from your units would make it easier to tell what's going on across the battlefield.

This in conjunction with an option where in the message log we could change the settings for each message type so that, for example, the 'coming under fire!' message could be set to pause the game and centre the map on the unit sending the message. Where as a 'we've spotted enemy infanty' could be set to centre the map and run in slow time mode. Other messages could be set so the game continued running with no changes, but you'd be aware things were happening without having to read the messages. Radio buttons could be set for various options for the varying message types.. the options could be along the lines of;

Pause game
Set time a slowest
Centre on unit
Zoom to full
Play audio for this message
No Audio, display text on screen for this message
Display only in message log

etc, etc

The various types of message could be;

Spotted enemy (could be further subdivided into infantry, armor, mg, at)
Firing, receiving fire
Taking casualties
Forced to retreat
Advancing
Arrived at FUP
In position
Attacking
Being bombarded

And many other combinations of orders/results.

If the audio part was felt to be too gamey it could be done just with text but in my opinion the audio would feel more real and hearing the message would enable you to know what's going on around the map without taking your eyes off what you're currently doing.

I'm not suggesting any of this be included in Bulge, but maybe considered for some future title? I think it would really help improve immersion

[Jakerson]

I'm bit disappointed that next game theme is battle of Bulge. I'm not interested about it simply because Germany had no chance at all to that point of war gain anything on strategic level out of it simply because Germany fuel and ammo stockpiles were too low for offensive. Whole operation was launched from whim of Hitler and it had no effect or even chance to change course of war. Only reason that Germany even penetrated allied lines was inferior quality of allied anti-tank weapons ability to defeat German tanks.

All western front battle where skirmishing compared to eastern front where Nazi Germany was in reality defeated for example in Operation Bagration at 1944 caused more damage to Nazi Germany than whole allied involvement counted together between 1939-45 and it was just one operation at eastern front. Eastern front caused 90% of German casualties and western front caused 10% of German casualties during WW2.

COTA was interesting subject becouse it made game out of theme that was some of those less popular themes in war games.

[sapper_astro]

I sorta get what your saying.
 
I personally want Pacific/ Far East campaigns ie; Malaya, Burma, New Guinea, Philipines, etc. France 1940, Poland, other less covered battles would be sweet as well.
 
However, After playing COTA I realise that wherever the game is set, its going to be fun. I do hope that one day some of these other areas will be covered, but I am willing to wait and see what happens...for now[;)]
 
I am guessing that they want a money spinner as well as a nice campaign area done in their style (Using the COTA system). Hopefully it will make them nice and rich, and lead to other less known campaigns like COTA in the future.

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

All really great stuff!!! [&o][&o][&o]
From my perspective the proposed Task Options alone rate y'all a modest statue..... throw in a minor fix like AA units that interfere with with airstrikes and/or the ability to capture enemy supplies and we'd be talking Pillars of Rhodes style monuments. [:D]

Rob.

[06 Maestro]

This really looks good.  I especially like the weapons data being included.  There were weapon systems with similar range, for the same mission with very different fire power ratings-a little too much to memorize all at once.  With this information a clik away it will be easier to properly employ units-nice work.
 
The obstacles and engineer modifications would be a big job.  This could have a major impact on how the game plays, as clearing obstacles is an operation within an operation.  When this does come about, smoke shell should be available to avoid a complete slaughter of engineers.
 
Regarding the Bulge campaign; even though Germany had no chance of over victory, German units did achieve many victories.  There could easily be dozens of well balanced scenarios-I will not hesitate to buy.  Having said that, I wish the next game was for the North African campaign-you can't please everyone all the time (try as you may).

[Arjuna]

True the chances of Germany pulling off a strategic reversal in the Bulge battles of 1944/45 were slim. Maybe a little slimmer than in 1940, but not much and then they did pull it off. Sure there were a lot of differences, but again there are striking similarities.
 
In any event, when you play a BFTB scenario you will be a Corps or Divisional commander trying to achieve assigned objectives within one of the many sectors that made up the Bulge battlefield. Just as in real life you will be measuring your success based on how well you do in achieving those objectives. Some of those scenarios will cover the early stages, others will cover the later stages. All will be challenging regardless.
 
Having a strategic importance is but one of the factors that make up a good scenario. At the Corps/Div level, it's of less import than having challenging objectives, or of having the opportunity for both sides to attack/counter attack, or of simulating operational surprise for one or both sides, or of requiring players to think flexibly and manouvre their forces under time pressure. And of these there were plenty in the Bulge. That's why it's one of the all time favourite battles of WW2. The fact that it has American forces and elite British and German forces is an added bonus.
 
Rest assured that you may have played many other Bulge games but you won't have experienced it like you will with BFTB. Our pausable continuous time system will shine in this battle and provide you with the very best experience of operational WW2 warfare.

[Plodder]

Nice set of changes.[:)]Are you still going to add the HTTR estabs to BFTB?

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

Nice set of changes.[:)]Are you still going to add the HTTR estabs to BFTB?

AFAIK Andries has already added them.[:)]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
I'm bit disappointed that next game theme is battle of Bulge.

Again. I suppose it sells.

Whatever happened to 'Patton's Charge"? Sigh..... [:(]

[sapper_astro]

Malaya/Burma could be awesome. Plenty of operational scenarios ready to run, with excellent terrain, and possibilities of defence and counterattack. At least four scenarios on the Malayan peninsular, along with one, or two on Singapore itself. Mix in any 'fantasy' scenarios here (Allied 'Competence' [;)])....Burma has quite a number as well; Initial Japanese attacks, British counterattack at okiedoke pass, chindits, Stillwell and his marauders along with the chinese army in the north (Burma road). All of which cover exceptional terrain for concealment and flanking maneuvres.
 
Only thing missing to some extent are Paratroops....It is Airbourne Assault after all....
 
Creating the Japanese AI would be interesting. It would need to be an expert at outflanking through jungle, and have extreme aggression settings.
 
France 1940 Allows many possibilities of course. I don't think I need to mention all the various attacks and counterattacks that could be made in France and the Benelux countries...too easy (Plenty of paras...). Along with this, An invasion of Britain scenario could be included (Along with Para's....) and some Norway scenarios (Including Paras)....

[Txema]

Arjuna,

Excellent list of features. I am really looking forward to them and to the scenarios of BFTB !!!

I think that postponing the minefields to invest the development time in improving the immersion, involvement and control of the player is a really sound decission. I am convinced that these improvements will broaden the player base of this excellent game series (and our enjoyment of the games !!!). I am also convinced that adding the Estab data view for equipment in game will be specially successfull to increase the immersion.

Excellent news !!!


Txema

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
France 1940 Allows many possibilities of course. I don't think I need to mention all the various attacks and counterattacks that could be made in France and the Benelux countries...too easy (Plenty of paras...). Along with this, An invasion of Britain scenario could be included (Along with Para's....) and some Norway scenarios (Including Paras)....

The only restriction to doing any scenarios is the Estabs. For France 1940, I reckon you have all the units you want for the Brit v German bits of that and probably everything for Norway using the COTA Estabs. Of course, you have to do the maps .... [;)]
Seriously everything is in place, I read some time ago that a group of guys was working on Sealion.
Cheers
Ray

[sapper_astro]

Hmm,
 
I have already made a slew of fantasy scenarios based off the tutorial storyline of COTA, so I know how to do it....I would need to learn more about map creation and get a decent paint program though. My hashed parts of maps stitched together creatively have worked well for Albania, Bulgaria, lower Yugoslavia and Turkey....I don't think they would cut the mustard for western Europe though.