What I like about new features in BF - but...

Battlefront features the power of battalion-level combat in some of this period's most bloody and intense conflicts: Saipan, Market Garden, Novorossisk, and Gazala. Players will have realistic control over their soldiers, with a tactical scale just large enough to make a telling difference in the strategic picture.

Moderators: Gregor_SSG, alexs

Post Reply
mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

Being a war game player going back to Avalon Hill in 1960, I have greatly enjoyed the evolution of simulations on the PC. Series from the premier companies like SSG just keep getting better with each iteration.

Sometimes it's the apparently simple improvements that really make a difference. Displaying all of a unit's parallel units in the unit box, with the ability to move among them by clicking on the icons, GREATLY simplifies coordinated unit movement, which is critical in games with unit cohesion and supply rules. Likewise for displaying the unit's HQ icon (which in turn displays the supply truck icon), switching back and forth, and for the ability to highlight all the units under a HQ. It beats the heck out of scanning the map for the green outlines (not always very visible in earlier games), especially when replacements come in from some faraway location. (The green outlines still are useful for getting a quick read on unit dispersion.) This featue alone justified my purchase of their newest offering.

New features such as river ferry crossings are logical, imaginative extensions of features from previous games. They add greatly to the realism, as do the limitations imposed by supply and other constraints. Game design always involves striking the best balance between realism and playability (with busines considerations having a thumb on the scale, too). For those who are relatively new to these games, take my word for it - you never had it so good. Each new SSG mark in this long-running series has managed to increase both realism and playability. [&o]

The fact that BF shipped with only 2 major and 2 minor scenarios doesn't bother me that much. I never bothered with the minor ones, even in BiN or BiI. I go right to the Big Cahuna and play it twice against the AI as the default player (usually the Allies). Then I play once or twice against the Allies' AI. Then I play a hotseat game as both players. This is the best test of play balance, since by then I can squeeze the most out of the rules and each side gets maximum performance. By then, it's getting close to the next SSG release and I gleefully start all over again. IOW, I'm an automatic sale for this line of SSG games.

That's not to say that I'm perfectly satisfied with every aspect of these games.

The most common and obvious shortcoming is the AI. Short of building a game on a mainframe with millions of lines of code, the AI always will come up short. SSG's gets better every time, although sometimes it's two steps forward and one back. BF has some glaring gaps. Some are the same as in previous iterations, but not all. Unlike BiN, HQ, supply trucks, and artillery just hunker down in one spot and refuse to move even when adjacent units are under attack. They set up in the same spot, so on the second playing, I dispatch mobile units to do search & destroy on them ASAP. Knocking out the HQ, truck and arty units greatly cripples the AI's side. The AI also is oblivious to supply except perhaps on a local unit basis. Send a few mobile units on a territory-grabbing sweep and you can isolate most Axis units early in the game.

Regarding territory, the AI apparently is programmed to guard certain key areas and ignore the rest. Not only are the Italian units pretty timid - which does emulate reality - but even the strong German formations in the south will only venture so far from the surrounded French garrison. This allows you to leave long stretches of your line totally unguarded, when a human opponent would be probing and exploiting those corridors. Rather than have the Allies units in the south get ground up piecemeal by the aggressive AI, I pull them back "out of range" and wait until I can concentrate them into a formidable phalanx which I then "march and entrench" very slowly to the west. Eventually the AI's trip-wire activates a furious attack, but it's habit of leaving weakened units out in the open allows you to focus on eliminating them one by one with the forces thay you have carefully conserved and assembled there. With proper execution you will win this kind of localized war of attrition. Previous games would occasionally park an HQ or truck or arty unit in an exposed position. BF seems to do it wholesale by design, even with combat units.

And what's with the constant "musical chairs" movement of units around the French garrison? I haven't played as the Axis player yet, but I can't imagine that all of this is the "resupply two-step" where units in unsupplied hexes are pulled back to a supplied hex for a supply refill. Why does the AI keep all these units buzzing around the perimeter when they should be grinding down the fortifications and attacking the garrison?

The other big shortcoming is the manuals. If you haven't already played a predecessor game, learning even the basics from the manual is like trying to understand the third movie in a trilogy without having seen the previous installments. You get most of it but you know you're missing a lot, too.

Part of the problem is missing or poorly constructed text for some of the rules and features. However, an even bigger flaw has crept in over time. For whatever reason, sections are out of logical sequence. An early section will give details on something that has not yet been adequately explained to the reader, which makes that important bit of information useless until the player grasps the concepts that are explained later on - and then stumbles across it while rereading the manual. Sometimes these important details are in sections where the reader would not intuitively expect to find them, which ought to be in the section that explains the basics. I suspect that what is happening is that each new manual starts with the one for the previous game and the details on new features are plugged in willy-nilly. Each new manual grows by accretion rather than by deliberate, thoughtful design. This can happen when business pressures to work on parallel or new game development make activities such as manual writing a low priority. As someone who does communications and writing for a living, many is the time that I've been exasperated to the point that I was tempted to do a complete rewrite from the ground up. Note to Marketing: If you want to attract newbies, the manuals do need a complete overhaul. It's hard enough for experienced, determined grognards to ferret out the new features and rules. I can only imagine how confusing it must be for anyone who comes new to the game.

None of the above should be interpreted as "complaints". They are just observations about the limitations of the craft. Five stars to BF and to SSG - please, keep 'em coming!

Sorry about running on so long, but this is my first post here and there were a lot of things I wanted to get off my chest.

User avatar
SwampYankee68
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 9:37 am
Location: Connecticut, U.S.

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by SwampYankee68 »

Why don't you try playing by email?  I have found a reasonably knowlegable human opponent is usually more challenging than good AI
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by Fred98 »

[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
ORIGINAL:  mazorj[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Being a war game player going back to Avalon Hill in 1960,[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I discovered Avalon Hill in the late 70’s[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
ORIGINAL:  mazorj[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Series from the premier companies like SSG just keep getting better with each iteration.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]They sure do![/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
ORIGINAL:  mazorj[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Displaying all of a unit's parallel units in the unit box:[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]- with the ability to move among them by clicking on the icons,[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]GREATLY simplifies coordinated unit movement, which is critical in games with unit cohesion and supply rules.  [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Likewise for displaying the unit's HQ icon switching back and forth[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]-and for the ability to highlight all the units under a HQ. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]It beats the heck out of scanning the map for the other units in the division[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]This feature alone justified my purchase of their newest offering.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]New features such as river ferry crossings are logical, imaginative extensions of features from previous games. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]All these things are examples of taking advantage of computers to make wargaming better. However, unfortunately some prefer a board game converted to PC. Their eyes remain shut.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
ORIGINAL:  mazorj[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]The other big shortcoming is the manuals. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I never like manuals.  20 short tutorials “click here and do this and that causes that”  is much better than a manual[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]-[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

ORIGINAL: Swamp_Yankee

Why don't you try playing by email?  I have found a reasonably knowlegable human opponent is usually more challenging than good AI

The only "mail" game I've ever played was Diplomacy in the 1960s - by snail mail.

I've thought about it plenty of times, but I tend to do my gaming in spurts and I don't like the short scenarios. I'm not sure that an opponent would have patience to wait several days - or vice versa - while an e-mail game runs into weeks if not months! What's the typical duration (calendar time) for the full scenarios?

mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I never like manuals.  20 short tutorials “click here and do this and that causes that”  is much better than a manual[/font]

Some people do learn better that way, but there always are rules and features that you need to look up while still learning the game even if it is an extension of a series that you already know. Clear, complete, easily locatable text descriptions and graphics, presented in logical order, are a must in any manual.
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by Fred98 »

ORIGINAL: mazorj

What's the typical duration (calendar time) for the full scenarios?


Most people cannot play a turn a day. As a result take the number of turns of any scenario and multily by 3 or 4 and thats how long it takes to play the scenario PBEM.

This applies to ALL PBEM games and I can never undestand any game that has 200 turns - you know who you are [;)]
-

mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Most people cannot play a turn a day. As a result take the number of turns of any scenario and multily by 3 or 4 and thats how long it takes to play the scenario PBEM.

This applies to ALL PBEM games and I can never undestand any game that has 200 turns - you know who you are [;)]
-

Ouch - 2 months or more for a full scenario? [>:]

I can do 3-4 turns a day but that's if I don't have anything else that needs doing. And responding to the AI's fairly simple-minded moves probably goes quicker than countering a human player's, which can be more devious and require more thought.

User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by Fred98 »

ORIGINAL: mazorj

And responding to the AI's fairly simple-minded moves probably goes quicker than countering a human player's, which can be more devious and require more thought.


Yes. Thats why PBEM is so much better.

You can always play 4 PBEM games at the same time !

-

User avatar
SwampYankee68
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 9:37 am
Location: Connecticut, U.S.

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by SwampYankee68 »

ORIGINAL: mazorj

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Most people cannot play a turn a day. As a result take the number of turns of any scenario and multily by 3 or 4 and thats how long it takes to play the scenario PBEM.

This applies to ALL PBEM games and I can never undestand any game that has 200 turns - you know who you are [;)]
-

Ouch - 2 months or more for a full scenario? [>:]

I can do 3-4 turns a day but that's if I don't have anything else that needs doing. And responding to the AI's fairly simple-minded moves probably goes quicker than countering a human player's, which can be more devious and require more thought.


I think you are missing the point, but that is your personal preferrence, so it is your point to miss if you choose - That said, I have played battles that have taken months to resolve - but I play with an opponent who has become a friend via the emails that we exchange with our turns, and we both have great patience for the other when real life interviens. The games are enjoyable, we both try to win but don't get "gamey", and we don't rush each other.

As a result I have been able to enjoy enjoy several squad battles games, UV, and SPMBT to mention a few - so for me PBEM is a good choice. But I could see how you would not like it if you felt like it would be boring going days between turns. For me it is like picking up a good book only when I have the time to enjoy reading it.
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
User avatar
Gregor_SSG
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:22 am
Contact:

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by Gregor_SSG »

Just on the question of AI, one of the many handicaps that an AI faces is that it is forced to try to play in a militarily sensible way, and yet its human opponents are under no such restrictions. It is hard enough to construct an AI that responds well to a conventional attack that it's just not sensible, even if it was technically possible, to try and take account of everything that a human player might try.

This problem is made much worse in scenarios like Gazala, where there are effectively no barriers to movement.

There are two solutions to the problem. Plan A would see us create an AI that thinks like a human and can react sensibly to any arbitrary series of moves by an opponent. The problem with Plan A is that it can't be done, and if it could, we wouldn't be making wargames with the technology.

Plan B is something that I can't talk about too much, but our next game will have an (optional) design feature that will counter the more flamboyant player moves.

Gregor
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.
User avatar
SwampYankee68
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 9:37 am
Location: Connecticut, U.S.

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by SwampYankee68 »

Speaking for myself, Gregor, I'd rather just have more scenarios to play.  One can find good opponents if he tries to. 
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

ORIGINAL: Swamp_Yankee


I think you are missing the point, but that is your personal preferrence, so it is your point to miss if you choose - That said, I have played battles that have taken months to resolve - but I play with an opponent who has become a friend via the emails that we exchange with our turns, and we both have great patience for the other when real life interviens. The games are enjoyable, we both try to win but don't get "gamey", and we don't rush each other.

As a result I have been able to enjoy enjoy several squad battles games, UV, and SPMBT to mention a few - so for me PBEM is a good choice. But I could see how you would not like it if you felt like it would be boring going days between turns. For me it is like picking up a good book only when I have the time to enjoy reading it.

Heh, I have a hard enough time keeping up on reading my backlog of military books. At least they wait patiently for my attention. I'd probably tick off a human, going weeks with nothing then sending five messages and three game moves in a single day.

mazorj
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:58 pm

RE: What I like about new features in BF - but...

Post by mazorj »

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Just on the question of AI, one of the many handicaps that an AI faces is that it is forced to try to play in a militarily sensible way, and yet its human opponents are under no such restrictions. It is hard enough to construct an AI that responds well to a conventional attack that it's just not sensible, even if it was technically possible, to try and take account of everything that a human player might try.

This problem is made much worse in scenarios like Gazala, where there are effectively no barriers to movement.

There are two solutions to the problem. Plan A would see us create an AI that thinks like a human and can react sensibly to any arbitrary series of moves by an opponent. The problem with Plan A is that it can't be done, and if it could, we wouldn't be making wargames with the technology.

Plan B is something that I can't talk about too much, but our next game will have an (optional) design feature that will counter the more flamboyant player moves.

Gregor

I can't wait to see what you come up with! Right now I'm playing the Axis for the first time in Gazala to probe the AI's strategies, after which I'll play another round using what I've learned. It may not be entirely "fair" to exploit the AI weaknesses that way but I do enjoy it. Then I'll play a couple of hotseat rounds with me doing both sides. That's the real test of play balance because you know how to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of both sides to the max.
Post Reply

Return to “Battlefront”