Air Force support.

[pawelwj]

I've been reading "D-Day" by Anthony Beavor, and one aspect of fighting which had quite an impact on events is the Allied use of Air power in close support, harasment, and heavy and medium bombing raids in preparation to an offensive. JTCS does have support for a close air support, but harasment or heavy bombing is not possible. Anyone though about expanding JTCS to allows at least the heavy bombing raids?

[V22 Osprey]

Well, think of the game scale.Heavy bombing raids are usually a long time before the actually invasion.Look at D-Day, when the troops landed, the craters were already there from the earlier bombing raids.By the time the battle(and scenario) starts, heavy bombing should be over.Otherwise you are asking for friendly fire.

[pawelwj]

Of course for a smaller scenarios that is true, but the game allows for a quite a large scenarios as well (Hell's Highway, Decision Day (All of D-Day) to name two massive ones). Those large historical are the ones I'm quite partial to. Of course you can assume the start of a game to be after the initial bombing, however if an individual air support attack is possible then a heavy bombing raid should be as well. I think it might give the game an added level of realism and unpredicatibility if it is possible.

[MrRoadrunner]

I agree with V22 Osprey. Air power has always been abstracted because of the game scale and the fact that it is a tactical "land combat" game.
Heavy bombing? I hope not. [8|]
Super large scenarios? The thought is nice and I am sure some like to play them but, they are totally out of the scale of the game?
Air, sea, and supply have all been abstracted to enhance playability based on the game's scale.
 
I'm not a big fan of the supersized scenarios. [:)]
 
Mr RR

[Geomitrak]

ORIGINAL: pawelj
I've been reading "D-Day" by Anthony Beavor,

Got that sitting on my bookshelf awaiting its turn. [:)]

Regards

Paul

[countblue]

I am a fan of supersized scenarios. Gimme 300 turns and a German Panzerkorps vs. a russian Guards Army.... and forget me for about 2 weeks, I loooove it.

[mheard]

[font="Tahoma"][font="Arial"][/font][font="Trebuchet MS"]I am a fan of the large scale scenarios and would like to see features in the game that would better serve these.

I appreciate OspreyV22's point about scale but there is no reason why JTCS couldn't support a concertina in terms of scale. In certain respects the game is not the best to represent small unit actions because the unit sizes are too big individually and terrain graphics are perhaps samey and 'bland'.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more expanded view to see say urban fighting in more detail.

As regards aircraft. What would work (I hope) is the use of aircraft in a way that indirect artillery by the map works. The scenario design marks hex boundaries for a medium/heavy bomber raid to take place over turns n +n. Then the aircraft attacks all enermy units in that hex. Factors such as drift and missing the target hex could be put in as well.

Fighter bombers could be set to patrol an area on the map and will pick out targets at random or if possible by a player defined set of priorities. The aircraft would then leave the map once their ammunition is exhausted.

Just a few thoughts... any comments?


Martin Heard[/font][/font]

[V22 Osprey]

Well, the thing is that on 90% of scenarios it would be useless.Maybe on larger scenarios yes, but how many scenarios you know that are that big that it would require a modeling of heavy bombing?The only one that comes to my mind is the Gigantic "OVERLORD" scenario.Heavy bombing is represented in SPWAW, but thats only in maybe 2% of scenarios, and even in those scenarios it was particularly unrealistic and gamey.It was basically used for suppressing a crap load of infantry fast, often with the blast radius so terrible that there was a very high possibility of hitting your own troops.I remember one scenario on Spanish Civil War in SPWAW, all I had to do was call in a bunch of heavy bombing strike to literally decimate the infantry, then the enemy was a push over.No fun.[:'(]

However, it may work in JTCS because it is at a higher scale.However, adding this could open a whole new can of worms and bugs, so in the end it may not be worth it, though that's for me to decide.[:D]

[junk2drive]

I agree with V22. You get to a certain point, especially in PBEM, where the tactics and planning get thrown out in favour of arcade style blasting.

That's why there are no big nukes to end the game at bedtime.

[MrRoadrunner]

Please remember that 300 turns is 30 hours of real time?
Where is night and day? Where is rest and resupply?
 
You want carpet bombing in a land based tactical wargame?
Does that mean wing tip to wing tip of bombers unloading in every hex as they fly by? Does that mean 10 turns of doing nothing as you try to keep your troops out of harms way by not moving them forward to get hit?
 
I think that larger scenarios become more abstract/gamey than simulation.
It's my personal belief. I just think there is much more potential designing scenarios for, and playing into, the strengths of the game system's current scale.
Altering to be what it is not will only dilute it. IMHO.
 
I also think if you want to play the game, as a game, then go for it. Just do not push for changes that will take the game away from it's current scale.
 
RR

[mheard]

Hi OspreyV22,

Operation Cobra and Monte Cassino come to mind for heavy bombers in direct support of ground forces.

What I would like to see is the facility to have aircraft target an area which is not in line of sight and all units in the targeted hexes are attacked. The targets would also inlcude bridges & buildings and roads (cratering). These were the common tasks of the medium bomber Poland 1939 onwards.

You mention 'can of worms' presumably referring to program changes that might impact elsewhere. Having worked in IT for 20 years I know exactly what you mean. Are you in fact one of the programmers for JTCS and are working on V1.05 and Modern Wars?

Showing my ignorance but what is SPWAW?

You have seen my other postings...

I would like to get a more centralised list of the JTCS community's wishes and wants for the game. Jason Petho has initiated the requested untis postings but we don't have a single point of focus for all the ideas for changes and improvements. It would be great then to have feedback on on the ideas as to feasiblity and impact. The aircraft as mentioned above is a case in point. Can the developers let us know what is involved to make the changes and additions?

Also do you think it is reasonable for future version upgrades to be chargeable?

What do you and others think?


Martin Heard

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mheard
I would like to get a more centralised list of the JTCS community's wishes and wants for the game.

Tada!

tm.asp?m=1545815

Jason Petho

[marcbarker]

Martin, hmmmmmgood questions...I posted some of those same things over a year ago....and really ticked people off....there were changes in the game to sarisfy the few and not the many and those changes did turn some of the gamers off the series. Turned me off for a very long time. Some of the questions was the 1.05 update that was in late 2007- early 2008 and it was stated 2-3 years...modern wars took priority and then the CS game was hamstrung by encryption of files that were open source for a long time. This hindered some very bright people to go to other games and do mods there. I check back on the forums eveery so often just to see when the 1.05 update is. I just kept the 1.03 and added the armies I wanted married RS East Front and West Front. It was a task But one engine and one file structure. Modified some of the scenarios to be able to read the New OOB's etc. It was funn doing this but then I am just one user

Marc

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: barker

Some of the questions was the 1.05 update that was in late 2007- early 2008 and it was stated 2-3 years...modern wars took

[/quote]

Can you explain what you mean?

I am unclear, considering 1.05 isn't scheduled for release until next year and 1.04 was released September 2008.

Jason Petho

[MrRoadrunner]

Hi Martin,

I would like to see a lot of things that could improve the game.
Just remember the scale of the game and how the units relate to each other?

Carpet bombing was used but not in the tactical arena. The troopers used to advance into the "carpet bombed" area were kept way back to avoid collateral damage.

And, why would you want to be able to have ground attacks in areas that you cannot see? [&:]

RR

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: mheard

Hi OspreyV22,

Operation Cobra and Monte Cassino come to mind for heavy bombers in direct support of ground forces.

What I would like to see is the facility to have aircraft target an area which is not in line of sight and all units in the targeted hexes are attacked. The targets would also inlcude bridges & buildings and roads (cratering). These were the common tasks of the medium bomber Poland 1939 onwards.

You mention 'can of worms' presumably referring to program changes that might impact elsewhere. Having worked in IT for 20 years I know exactly what you mean. Are you in fact one of the programmers for JTCS and are working on V1.05 and Modern Wars?

Showing my ignorance but what is SPWAW?

You have seen my other postings...

I would like to get a more centralised list of the JTCS community's wishes and wants for the game. Jason Petho has initiated the requested untis postings but we don't have a single point of focus for all the ideas for changes and improvements. It would be great then to have feedback on on the ideas as to feasiblity and impact. The aircraft as mentioned above is a case in point. Can the developers let us know what is involved to make the changes and additions?

Also do you think it is reasonable for future version upgrades to be chargeable?

What do you and others think?


Martin Heard

Good Point about Cobra and Cassino.But like I said before, I don't think it would benefit the game the much.

No, I'm not one of the programmers(Though I've dabbled with some programming), I was just pointing out that this open a whole mess of other things.Let's say they add the feature.Now they have to model units getting bombed, new values on damage, not to mention of course that there will be no guarantee the feature will work perfectly if they put it in there, and thus more bug reports.The game does not need more bugs, just makes the developer's work harder.

Oh sorry about the acronyms.SPWAW is Steel Panthers: World at War a free game here at Matrix.

[MrRoadrunner]

Wouldn't it be easier for the game developers to make "bomb cratered" hexes that can reflect carpet bombing and include it for scenario designers to use. From everything I read the most annoying effect of carpet bombing was to create craters that effected movement and provided limited cover for infantry.
 
In light of the abstracting of air combat, I don't think the game's scale "fits" for including carpet bombing as a feature for players to use. It's more a strategic or grand tactical thing and better suited for games like TOAW?
 
RR

[baltjes]

I am a grat fan of large (superlarge!) scenario's. I fact I have created some and released them on the wargamer's website (Overlord, Operation Market Garden, Hell's Highway, Hollow Victory I and II, Fortress Holland, Grebbeberg 1940). And every time I learned more on how to make use of the possibilities the game offers.

Especially on the present subject: air support
Heavy bombing executed during gameplay is impossible but it can be simulated very easily by creating rubble-hexes in existing city hexes. This will disable all traffic but foot movement and gives (infantry)units an extra defense bonus! If you want to have an non-built area (e.g. a forrest or even clear terrain) been completely ploughed, you might consider to create cityhexes in the map-editor and change them into rubble with the scenario editor. If you want to simulate a large area with destroyed vehicles (e.g. Falaise pocket), just use wrecks (with the scenario editor).

An other feature referred to in this forum with respect to gamelength is length of a gameturn and how to deal with night and day when the scenario covers multiple days. This is default 6 minutes in the JTCS/MCS game system. For huge scenario's like OVELORD (let's restrict to that because that is the one mostly referred to) this is of course purely nonsense! It is impossible for soldiers to run 1 km per turn for 1250 turns! (or even more when 'on the dubble'). Therefore:

At first:
In OVERLORD, the length of a gameturn is about 20 minutes real time. Soldiers have to be resupplied, must rest and above all isn't most of a soldiers time spend by waiting?; waiting for transport, waiting for orders, waiting for......

At second:
Night hours are kept outside consideration. EXEPT when they are relevant! (e.g. the airdrops in OVERLORD). Otherwise most of them are simply skipped (but 2 turns in OVERLORD).

AT third:
It is very easy to change visibility DURING the game!! This enables the easy use of day and night turns and even dusk/dawn turns! You just have to change the .btl file; the latest digit in the 4th line of that file represents the visibility (this is '18' in OVERLORD). You can change that in '1' for night turns and e.g. '6' for dusk and dawn. (Just open the .btl file with noteblock although any wordprocessor will do).

the .btl file reads:
10
OVERLORD
0 0 0 7500
0 0 0 0 18

Night turns are: 1 -15, 65 -67, 116 - 117, 166 - 167, 216 - 217, ............., 1216 - 1217 (last day's turn + 50!)
Dawn turns are: 16 - 19, 68 -69, 118 - 119,........., 1218 - 1219.
Dusk turns are: 63 - 64, 113 - 114, ..........., 1213 - 1214.

If anyone can let me now how to add an EXCEL-file to a message like this, I am quite willing to put the time table of OVERLORD on this forum.

Hajo Baltjes

[countblue]

Hats off to all who admit addiction to large and even superlarge scenarios, thanks to you I can see that I am not the only maniac. [&o]
Also:
Thanx baltjes for some great insights (at third!!) didnt know that I could do that in the game just by an edit of the .btl file.
Great solution for me.

This game and the great support from all of you keeps me going forever.
CB

[mheard]

there were changes in the game to sarisfy the few and not the many and those changes did turn some of the gamers off the series. Turned me off for a very long time

[font="Tahoma"][font="Times New Roman"]Hi there barker[:-],

Could you expand on what you mean here?

I stopped playing about early 2001 until recently because I didn't have the spare time (job) . However, I felt that the game wasn't being developed to improve and that Divided Ground was a poor product. I got very frustrated with the AI especially in longer and more complicated scenarios. (Why or why did it use all its smoke quota in the first few turns...?) JTCS V1.04 is a great improvement except that the AI/HAL still doesn't cut the mustard which means there are (IMHO) too many Human versus Human scenarios...

Having said that, to get changes and improvements we gamers have to be positive and constructive with our wishlist(s) and suggestions.

My and other suggestions about air bombing seem to have started a debate about the scale of the game. I'm pretty sure that not everyone will agree about this scale and scope whether in the physical sense (extent of the of battle area, number of units and so forth) and time scales. JTCS is a tactical level game and not a strategic one. That much I am certain on. I suppose the context is that JTCS is not the game to fight the entire Battle of Kursk but just about covers the whole of Market Garden perhaps.

Back to the aircraft and bombing debate.

Large-scale bombing raids in support of ground forces would not be an option in the sense that these were planned several days in advance and therefore are out of time 'scope'. BUT this doesn't discount the simulation of say Cobra or Cassino to take place in the scenario design at the beginning or near start of the game. Whilst the bombing takes place over say, 2-3+ turns, the player on the receiving end would have time to move units and adjust AAA. The damage caused to units and terrain would be calculated at that point rather than pre-determined in the scenario map.

In the main I would like to see the capabilities of bomber aircraft to target specific geographic features such as bridges and buildings as did happen tactically.

The new aircraft units and the ability to use them directly gets some way to this end. However, I would like to see (1) Aircraft to fly directly over enemy held hexes (2) some concept of flying height so that LOS is as an aircaft would see terrain (3) damage to buildings, bridges, roads, etc by bombing and artlillery. (4) camouflage option for units set at scenario level which would increase the concealment value of a unit by a factor of X depending on the terrain in which they are placed.

Just some thoughts.....

Martin[/font][/font]