moving on...

[RayWolfe]

C'mon, no modesty allowed here, publish them and let's all take a look.
Seriously, I know that scenario design takes a lot of effort to get them anywhere acceptable but we are a very kind lot here and would not be tooooo critical. People have even been kind enough NOT to comment on my scenarios on the basis of my old mother's mantra: If you can't say nufink nice, don't say nufink at all. [;)]
Ray
Now as for map making, that's a black art!

[PaulWRoberts]

ORIGINAL: 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.[:)]

Was this ultimately successful? I thought it was determined that adding engineers to 1944 estabs in COTA would cause a crash. (It certainly did in my test scenarios.) Trying to play Market-Garden without engineers kind of misses the point.

I hope this will be fixed in BFTB. I'm really looking forward to updated M-G scenarios...

[Arjuna]

We'll provide the Estabs for MG but it will up to the community to redo the scenarios. Too much has changed to convert these.

[sapper_astro]

What, you guys would be interested ini fantasy scenarios?
 
Stuff it. I will burn them to disk, and put them up when i get to my brothers next. [:D]

[Tactics]

A grand campaign.
Units that can retreat off the map, re-fit and then return at a later date
Less fictional scenarios.
Longer historic scenarios.
 
$.02

[PaulWRoberts]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

We'll provide the Estabs for MG but it will up to the community to redo the scenarios. Too much has changed to convert these.

That is excellent news! Thanks!

[Tactics]

How does a re-done UI, map maker, scenario maker and AI tweaks make us feel more immersed? I loved HTTR, don’t get me wrong, but it seems like what Arjuna is listing as immersion enhancements are more like game engine tweaks. Major upgrades? Definitely. Anything to do with immersion? Not in my opinion.

Immersion, for me, makes the game feel more personal. Heavy losses aren’t just numbers, or a game piece that goes bye bye. It's about being attached, nurturing a unit to gain experience, protecting valuable ones that have taken heavy losses; it's smiling to yourself and saying "that’s a bad ass MF'er"

A map maker and a newer UI....not so much.

[jungelsj_slith]

Couldn't agree with you more, Tactics. Nothing kills immersion more for me than short scenarios - everything becomes expendable. A longer scenario, though (and ultimately, a campaign) - makes you want to hold on to every one of your units. The other benefit of course is that longer scenarios take advantage of the wonderful supply system, short scenarios do not.

In terms of immersion/media/stats/unit info, I do believe that this engine has a long way to go. It's really the only sore point, for me, and I believe it's one of the main reasons that casual players tend not to pick up games like this.

[simovitch]

As a scenario designer I am curious - what range would be considered a 'longer scenario?'

Thanks

[Tactics]

8 days or more is what i consider a longer scenario, but that's only becuase we've never had anything to exceed that. I think COTA only comes with 2...maybe 3 scenarios that are 8 days or more.
 
I'd love a 60 day scenario, supply along with the feature of refitting units....that'll get some attention.
 
If immersion really is an issue (and for me it is) change the scale. Make things more personal. Instead of companys could it be changed to squads?  Instead of clicking a unit and seeing 108 M'1s or 14 Shermans, we would see individual soldier names, expanding that soldiers stats would show "his" moral, exp, ammo etc.
 
HTTR was ground breaking. COTA was cool, but didnt hold my attention nearly as long. The Bulge game is out for me. I never wanted it. I'll hold off for the Eastern Front.

[Hoplomachia]

Immersion is really an individual taste. A high degree of historical accuracy is a must for me.
I really like the scale of this game as it simulates the operational actions of a brigade/division/corps commander and I actually want more limited info on my units as a real commander would have. Too many wargamers are fixated by the idea of Total Control, which I think is not wargaming but chess.
Scaling down this game to Squad level would hardly give longer scenarios and larger maps, and would probably mean changing the game engine totally.
Most historical actions in WW2 did not take place more than a few days unless you want to simulate a whole campaign. A 60-day scenario in COTA would then have to include a map of all Greece to make it historical. If you continue to expand scenarios in regard to what happens in the 'valley on your left flank', would you not eventually end up with another global 'World at War' game?
A possible campaign-like feature could be that the units of your brigade/division/corps 'carry over' in some form into the next scenario and that could give you a more 'personal' feel for your units and make your actions from preceding scenarios count more. Another feature like 'free' setup would also be a great addition, especially in Multiplayer.

[sapper_astro]

Hmm, Perhaps Tactics should stick with Tactical games?[;)] I remember thinking 'You bad MF' when playing Close combat and the like, but not so much with Operational/Strategic games.
 
A campaign system would be nice, though I think Panther should be thinking of an alternative to the 'Days/Turns' system. O think many would agree that having a set amount of turns/days gives the player too much control over the situation, and allows their fight to live in a vacuum, not having to worry about the future.
 
The last hurrah by the character player, just to reach an objective without worrying about being surrounded after getting the objective or having 60% of your forces destroyed (So that holding the place would be impossible in another 6 hours after scenario end) is a terminal problem without a campaign
 
A solution is not so easy to this dilemma. If I can think of something I will post it up.

[Banquet]

COTA has a wonderful supply system but it is true that in many of the scenario's are either too short for it to matter much, or it only matters for the 1st half of the scenario. If you have 3 days till the end of the game and your units have good supply, you can pretty much stop worrying.

The other problem mentioned of the last hurrah to take the objectives is a good point.. but however long you make a scenario the end part will always be open to that happening. Even a campaign, if historical, would as often as not introduce new units or concentrate on different units in a different part of the campaign (as it stand now the map, although big, isn't big enough to simulate the entire operation area of many corp/divisional size battles) so the campaign would likely swing to different area's.

One way around it would be to subract victory points based on poor state of your remaining units, and to do this especially heavily for units out of supply. You could even say that out of supply units get no victory points for holding objectives.

I would like to see bigger maps and longer time frames too. Imagine an Overlord game where you control all 5 invasion beachhead's on the same map, with 3 months time frame to play with! In a game like this supply would become VERY important, we could see the experience of our units raise over time and would start to really care about them. There would be more time for move and counter move, victories and set backs. Obviously this wouldn't be for the faint-hearted (and I'd feel truly sorry for whoever had to do the map! [:D]) But I think it something of this scale would really show what a fantastic engine the AA series has. It is well suited to big battles due to the way orders are issued to HQ's.

Many wargamer's love the epic scenario's (look how many people are playing Fire in the East in TOAWIII)I think many people would be interested in something like this. Not necessarily Overlord, but any campaign of similar size - think what you could do with North Africa and many others.

Obviously not going to happen any time soon, but I can dream! [:)]

[Trigger Happy]

We could implement a scroling map, where the map shown corresponds to the space the div/corps the player controls occupies; the map would just follows the progress of the players forces. Also, like in mario bros, the player could be eliminated if he does not keep up to speed with the scroling map speed... [8|]

[Tomus]

I would like see some personal affects kicking in. As much as I love the whole AA games I can't get past the fact I am moving boxes around. I feel a bit of a disconnect between how the game presents its data so I don't actually care about many of the units. You don't get the feeling of embattled troops or of a unit holding out to its last. Its all slightly too abstract. I remeber those cheesy graphics  sequences you used to get in say Panzer General or the FMV boxes that would appear in Harpoon 3 when a plane launched or got shot down, that stuff just puts me in the mood and grounds me back into the action.

Also maybe work on how the map looks, perhaps a replicated WWII map for example with some wooden looking counters, even say getting some voices to replicate radio chatter or messangers going out etc etc. I'm not saying turn the game into a full on 3D FPS fest but just a touch more personality wouldn't hurt IMO. But that's just my opinion....so don't take it as red and I will still buy, support and play all your games regardless. I would just love to see the series expand and grow, and maybe including populist elements might make it seem all the more accessible.

[Txema]

I don't think that longer scenarios will attract more players (and even less if we are referring to casual players !!) to this game system. I, for example, prefer the shorter scenarios because the longer ones take too much time for me, and I unfortunately don't have that extra time needed. I am sure a lot of payers have the same problem as me, so please, include also a good amount of short and medium size scenarios !!!

I think that the obvious improvement to attract more players (and a good amount of not so hardcore players and casual players) is to make the game more accessible by improving the User Interface as Arjuna in planning for BFTB. Adding the Estab data view for equipment in game, including the relevant features of the equipment and a drawing or a photograph of it, will increase the immersion noticeably and will make the game much more accessible for those that don't have a so deep knowledge in WWII equipment, expanding the player base of the game significantly. When I have tried to get some of my friends into this game I have noticed that it feels too abstract for them, because they can only see counters and equipment listings whose features they frequently don`t know. Changing the UI as Arjuna is planning will avoid that, and will make the equipment listings come alive with the photographs and features immediatly accessible by the player. That will definitely increase immerssion, at least for a good amount of players !!

Txema

[Arjuna]

OK we have just got our new BFTB forum up. I'll be adding more info over the next week.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=414

[BAL]

I guess I'm of a different viewpoint than some.  I prefer the shorter, smaller scenarios where I am commanding just a brigade or division.  Trying to achieve an objective with a limited number amount of forces is an ideal challenge for me & provides plenty of "immersion".

[flintlock]

ORIGINAL: BAL
Trying to achieve an objective with a limited number amount of forces is an ideal challenge for me & provides plenty of "immersion".

I too, enjoy the smaller scenarios.

[sapper_astro]

I enjoy both. After all, thats why you can save the game, no?[;)]
 
If I am playing one of the Crete scenarios, or another longer one, and only have limited time, I click 'save game' and then go and take care of life stuff.