I have followed this game with interest, but there are some hooks that make that I have not bought it yet. Firstly I do not understand why this type of games always have to downgrade the graphics - it could just be as simple as "Across the Dnepr. And why not sprites?
Well, enough negativity - from the videos I've seen, I feel that the game is pretty complex. Maybe even too complex for me. If you have played and have to be honest - would a guy who loves strategy games as HOI3, EU3 and "Storm over the Pacific" like this game? Realism, beauty and replayability is the keywords for me? would you recommend the game?
too complex?
Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul
RE: too complex?
High level of realism and replayability, and beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. [;)]
BftB is hardly comparable with the EU/HOI series. Maybe you should wait for the demo.
BftB is hardly comparable with the EU/HOI series. Maybe you should wait for the demo.
RE: too complex?
Put yourself in the feet of the Corps / Division commander...
Do you look at a 3D map with sprites like toy soldiers and plastic tanks?
I don't think so. You look at a flat military-style map with Nato symbols representing your Battalions and Companies.
The game is not complex. HOI is more complex with all the economics / politics / military production you have to focus on. Using the chain of command makes playing it simpler than most tactical / operational wargames. With the micromanaging out of the way, you now focus on the prolems real commanders face. BTW, the games that you like are all strategic in scale, this one is operational.
This game is almost a "simulation" more than just a mere strategy game. It definitely a different experience. It's very educational. You appreciate how a military operation is actually performed with all the SOPs, doctrines, etc.
Do you look at a 3D map with sprites like toy soldiers and plastic tanks?
I don't think so. You look at a flat military-style map with Nato symbols representing your Battalions and Companies.
The game is not complex. HOI is more complex with all the economics / politics / military production you have to focus on. Using the chain of command makes playing it simpler than most tactical / operational wargames. With the micromanaging out of the way, you now focus on the prolems real commanders face. BTW, the games that you like are all strategic in scale, this one is operational.
This game is almost a "simulation" more than just a mere strategy game. It definitely a different experience. It's very educational. You appreciate how a military operation is actually performed with all the SOPs, doctrines, etc.
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
RE: too complex?
ORIGINAL: jnpoint
...would a guy who loves strategy games as HOI3, EU3.. like this game? Realism, beauty and replayability is the keywords for me?
If you can play these games, then the learning curve of BFtB will be much lesser imo.
The real issue is can you think like an operational commander becuase that's the scale you're going to be getting? You're not buliding a nation, you're running one of those corps you send out to fight.
In terms of realism then, as an operational commander this is the best I've seen.
Beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder. I play with the 2d NATO icons.
RE: too complex?
thanks for the answers!
OK - the graphics is as it is. But I still don't understand those NATO icons.
Sometimes the military words confuses me - what lies precisely in that it is "operational"?
I love micromanagement - can I when it is operational at all give individual units orders? Or is the concept in operational games, that micromanagement is out of the question?
OK - the graphics is as it is. But I still don't understand those NATO icons.
Sometimes the military words confuses me - what lies precisely in that it is "operational"?
I love micromanagement - can I when it is operational at all give individual units orders? Or is the concept in operational games, that micromanagement is out of the question?
RE: too complex?
If you want to you can give individual orders to each of your units but that is sort of counter the basic idea behind the game. What it does is give you the tools to give orders to your subordinate commanders who in turn analyze them and give orders to theirs. This is what happens in real life, a commander controls his immidiate subordinates and may give specific orders to some lower units, usually some specialized ones such engineers and such. A battalion commander gives orders to his company commanders, not each and every platoon in the battalion. But as I said, if that is what you want, you´re free to do so though I belive there is some sort of command rating which governs the number of units a commander can control directly?
/Sweden
-
SgtChaudart
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:14 pm
RE: too complex?
Look at here for the NATO Icons.
For operational, to simple:
Close Combat : Tactic
HOI : Strategic
Opérational it's between both
For operational, to simple:
Close Combat : Tactic
HOI : Strategic
Opérational it's between both
-
PirateJock
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:59 pm
- Location: North West, UK
RE: too complex?
Hi jnpoint - reckon you'd be best waiting for the demo; supposed to be in a few weeks. It costs a bit more than other games [;)]
IMO the game is nowhere near as complex as the big strategy games - they hurt my head as I can't spend enough time on them to consider everything. In the game the level of unit control is up to you. The fact that the AI is able to take your orders and figure out how to implement them is one of the things I like ... fun to watch it happen and sometimes frustrating - in a good way - when they do something you hadn't expected. I like the unit and map graphics - as simple to understand (learning the NATO symbols is part of the enjoyment for me - though there is the option to use picture symbols for the units.) and in keeping with military commander situation.
IMO the game is nowhere near as complex as the big strategy games - they hurt my head as I can't spend enough time on them to consider everything. In the game the level of unit control is up to you. The fact that the AI is able to take your orders and figure out how to implement them is one of the things I like ... fun to watch it happen and sometimes frustrating - in a good way - when they do something you hadn't expected. I like the unit and map graphics - as simple to understand (learning the NATO symbols is part of the enjoyment for me - though there is the option to use picture symbols for the units.) and in keeping with military commander situation.
Combat Command Matrix Edition Company, The Forgotten Few
RE: too complex?
ORIGINAL: jnpoint
...
Well, enough negativity - from the videos I've seen, I feel that the game is pretty complex. Maybe even too complex for me. If you have played and have to be honest - would a guy who loves strategy games as HOI3, EU3 and "Storm over the Pacific" like this game? Realism, beauty and replayability is the keywords for me? would you recommend the game?
The game is a lot easier to learn and to play than HOI3.
Henri
RE: too complex?
Tactics involve squads to battalions over minutes. Operations involve regiments to armies over days or weeks. BftB shows what happens when your divisions go at it in HoI.
Historically, commanders would generally (no pun intended lolol) give orders two steps down the chain, so I guess a battalion commander actually would order platoons. This is reflected in the game: command capacity generally allows for direct orders two steps down plus some extra (usually support) units.
ORIGINAL: Tord Hoppe
This is what happens in real life, a commander controls his immidiate subordinates and may give specific orders to some lower units, usually some specialized ones such engineers and such. A battalion commander gives orders to his company commanders, not each and every platoon in the battalion. But as I said, if that is what you want, you´re free to do so though I belive there is some sort of command rating which governs the number of units a commander can control directly?
Historically, commanders would generally (no pun intended lolol) give orders two steps down the chain, so I guess a battalion commander actually would order platoons. This is reflected in the game: command capacity generally allows for direct orders two steps down plus some extra (usually support) units.
RE: too complex?
Wonderful - I have the feeling that here is really some people with insight into warfare.
But back to the game: let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. I give the commander orders, and he gives them automatically down the chain! Is the game then over for me?
2. Here is a little more abstract problem: If I give a unit a second order than the one I assigned the commander - which order will the unit then follow?
But back to the game: let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. I give the commander orders, and he gives them automatically down the chain! Is the game then over for me?
2. Here is a little more abstract problem: If I give a unit a second order than the one I assigned the commander - which order will the unit then follow?
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
RE: too complex?
ORIGINAL: jnpoint
Wonderful - I have the feeling that here is really some people with insight into warfare.
But back to the game: let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. I give the commander orders, and he gives them automatically down the chain! Is the game then over for me?
2. Here is a little more abstract problem: If I give a unit a second order than the one I assigned the commander - which order will the unit then follow?
Hi Jnpoint, at one stage it looks like you were very interested in buying Advanced Tactics. So obviously you have some insight, like the other posters here, as to what goes into operational warfare.
Re your questions:
1. No, there are many posts in this forum that describe the involvement the commander has in developing orders, finessing them and them following their outcome for subsequent management.
2. This is a factor of: the orders delay you set, the state and abilities of your subordinate units and the situations they find themselves in when you issue your follow up commands.
What excited you about the prospect of buying Advanced Tactics? This may help you answer your own questions here.
RE: too complex?
1.) Well ideally this order will be carried out totally by the AI itself. The game is not over for you, because:
a) usually you have more than one objective to archive
b) you want to adjust your orders based on the performance of your troops and enemy reactions
c) there is always something you can tweak in order to get better results. Like ordering airstrikes, artillery support.
d) also you need to bring your different forces to good use.
2.) If you give a unit that is subordinated to the AI a direct order it will execute your order until you reattach it to its normal commander.
a) usually you have more than one objective to archive
b) you want to adjust your orders based on the performance of your troops and enemy reactions
c) there is always something you can tweak in order to get better results. Like ordering airstrikes, artillery support.
d) also you need to bring your different forces to good use.
2.) If you give a unit that is subordinated to the AI a direct order it will execute your order until you reattach it to its normal commander.
RE: too complex?
@ ZBrisk, I suspect we mean the same thing. A battalion commander can and will give orders to certain platoons that are to perform "special" jobs, but he won´t be ordering every rifle platoon around. That would leave him with grumpy company commanders 
@jnpoint:
1. No, not any more than it would in real life. There is a constant cycle of order-action-evaluation-order going on. Google OODA for info. Again, the game (sim?) reflect reality. I belive you´ve heard the phrase "every plan works until first contact" or something to that meaning
2. If you play a battalion commander and give a platoon an order, that platoon will become detached from its company and you now have control and responsibility of it. This is true until you press the "Reattach" button which returns it to its company commander.
@jnpoint:
1. No, not any more than it would in real life. There is a constant cycle of order-action-evaluation-order going on. Google OODA for info. Again, the game (sim?) reflect reality. I belive you´ve heard the phrase "every plan works until first contact" or something to that meaning
2. If you play a battalion commander and give a platoon an order, that platoon will become detached from its company and you now have control and responsibility of it. This is true until you press the "Reattach" button which returns it to its company commander.
/Sweden
RE: too complex?
BTW in the game there is an option to display picture symbols instead of NATO symbols. Then you would see pictures of tanks, infantry soldiers and guns.
Re 1. No certainly not. Making your assessment, developing a plan and issuing orders is a big part of the commanders task, but probably of equal import is the need to monitor developments, react to them, reassess your plan and issue new orders as the action unfolds. During the planning you should identify triggers ( ie events that will indicate the enemy is doing something that you need to respond to - eg the enemy is moving his tanks to reinforce the town ). Once your subordinates start actioning your orders you need to be monitoring developments closely, examining the state of your units, watching to see if any are breaking etc. You also need to see if any of the triggers you identified in the planning stage have fired and if so you need to issue new orders to your reserve ( you always keep a reserve ) ( eg launch counterattack against enemy tanks or bombard them ). Reaction, reassessment, contingency planning and execution are just as important as the initial plan development. There is more than enough to keep you occupied if you are doing your job right.
Re 2. Currently you can only assign a single order to any subordinate. So if you have ordered your force to Move to X but change your mind and order them to Defend Y, then they will kill off the initial Move order and replace it with Defend order. Having said that the AI is smart enough that if you give a Defend order and the force is not there yet, it will first Move there and when it reaches the objective it will then defend. Further if you check the attack task option when you issue your orders, the force can also launch an attack during its move to the objective if the enemy bar its way. The AI is quite powerful and you can trust it to do a reasonable job. The Tutorial movies explain all of this.
Re 1. No certainly not. Making your assessment, developing a plan and issuing orders is a big part of the commanders task, but probably of equal import is the need to monitor developments, react to them, reassess your plan and issue new orders as the action unfolds. During the planning you should identify triggers ( ie events that will indicate the enemy is doing something that you need to respond to - eg the enemy is moving his tanks to reinforce the town ). Once your subordinates start actioning your orders you need to be monitoring developments closely, examining the state of your units, watching to see if any are breaking etc. You also need to see if any of the triggers you identified in the planning stage have fired and if so you need to issue new orders to your reserve ( you always keep a reserve ) ( eg launch counterattack against enemy tanks or bombard them ). Reaction, reassessment, contingency planning and execution are just as important as the initial plan development. There is more than enough to keep you occupied if you are doing your job right.
Re 2. Currently you can only assign a single order to any subordinate. So if you have ordered your force to Move to X but change your mind and order them to Defend Y, then they will kill off the initial Move order and replace it with Defend order. Having said that the AI is smart enough that if you give a Defend order and the force is not there yet, it will first Move there and when it reaches the objective it will then defend. Further if you check the attack task option when you issue your orders, the force can also launch an attack during its move to the objective if the enemy bar its way. The AI is quite powerful and you can trust it to do a reasonable job. The Tutorial movies explain all of this.
RE: too complex?
ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Hi Jnpoint, at one stage it looks like you were very interested in buying Advanced Tactics. So obviously you have some insight, like the other posters here, as to what goes into operational warfare.
Re your questions:
1. No, there are many posts in this forum that describe the involvement the commander has in developing orders, finessing them and them following their outcome for subsequent management.
2. This is a factor of: the orders delay you set, the state and abilities of your subordinate units and the situations they find themselves in when you issue your follow up commands.
What excited you about the prospect of buying Advanced Tactics? This may help you answer your own questions here.
I did buy Advanced Tactics and had a lot af fun for many hours! I did like it because I could build a lot of units and because I like to see a good plan that works [:)] Therefore it is also important for me that I can count on the data I use in planning.
But although I have spent many hours in war games, I feel pretty inferior compared to some people on this forum.
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
RE: too complex?
ORIGINAL: jnpoint
But although I have spent many hours in war games, I feel pretty inferior compared to some people on this forum.
You shouldn't feel that way. I envy you for mastering EU! I drove for miles to buy EU1 and I was there on the EU site counting down the clock to the release of patch 1.01 with a big crowd of gamers!
I think that if you can master the UI of BFtB then this will put you in good stead for playing other wargames very well (board and PC) in the future. But you must imo be ready to adopt its design paradigm to get full mileage in enjoyment - ie: that you are your side's overall commander, you make the plans but you need to trust your subordinates to get the job done with a fatherly eye on them.
Oh, I can see Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Clausewitz, Rommel and Sgt Rock under the hood of this one [:D]
RE: too complex?
HoI is way more complex than this game...I tried HoI the original for a couple of days and I just didn't get it at all. Starters once you bring production\economy into games for me than I'm lost already...second that its realtime at that sort of scale really gets me confused...
This game is easy to play...hard to master...the more you play the more you learn how indepth it is...
The engine is a winner, no doubt about it and with the Est Editor then we are in for years of gaming heaven.
This game is easy to play...hard to master...the more you play the more you learn how indepth it is...
The engine is a winner, no doubt about it and with the Est Editor then we are in for years of gaming heaven.
RE: too complex?
The game is deep, but I find getting into it pretty intuitive/user-friendly, thanks to the accessible interface and very flexible command structure (which allows you to macro/micro as much as you want depending on your command style).
RE: too complex?
It is important to know that although you can give orders to any sub-units at any time, doing so will detach them, from its HQ and usually force the unit as well as its superior HQs to replan, which could cause delays that could be catastrophic in some cases. So generally one should avoid giving direct orders to a sub-unit that is in the middle of an attack, unless a pause in the attack is not expected to have serious consequences.It is usually better to have a reserve that is not engaged and that can intervene, or to detach a unit from a HQ that is not engaged (i.e. usually defencing). That is how it was in real life and that is why no competent commander would ever go into battle without a reserve.
So it is easy to understand the importance of planning, because changing orders on the fly can have bad consequences. OTOH as Arjuna has pointed out, one should always keep an eye on his forces to see if orders need to be modified. For example, a retreating enemy or a weaker force than anticipated or a stronger defense than anticipated could make an attacker decide to stop the attack and redirect all or part of his attacking force to another task, despite some delay introduced.
Also note that giving orders only to the top HQ and then watching one's plan unfold, even if one is a military genius and his plan has foreseen everything that could happen has the disadvantage that the sub-units have a longer orders delay than if they are getting orders from a closer HQ, and delays are amplified by distance.And a delay at any level of command can cause additional delays all down the line. For example, in the tutorial scenario, when Peiper AG arrived in the morning aroun 0800, since I was in a hurry to go out, I gave orders directly to the top HQ to attack St Vith a few km away. It was 3 PM before the attack got under way. One possible reason in addition to normal delays was air attacks by the enemy. Say the top HQ is hit by an air attack and routed before it has time to finish planning and transmitting its orders; then it could be hours before the whole AG is ready to execute the orders. The same can happen if an intermediae HQ is attacked while it is reorganizing or planning.
So it is probably usually preferable for the player (who is the top HQ) to do as they did in real life and to give orders two levels down. For a division HQ, this would mean giving orders down to the battalion level.Note that to give orders to a HQ (say a company) does not make you manage each component of the company. You would give an order like "attack" to a company HQ along with some parameters such as speed, depth and aggro, and the company commander would then give each platoon their orders, for instance, which units are in front and back etc.
Henri
So it is easy to understand the importance of planning, because changing orders on the fly can have bad consequences. OTOH as Arjuna has pointed out, one should always keep an eye on his forces to see if orders need to be modified. For example, a retreating enemy or a weaker force than anticipated or a stronger defense than anticipated could make an attacker decide to stop the attack and redirect all or part of his attacking force to another task, despite some delay introduced.
Also note that giving orders only to the top HQ and then watching one's plan unfold, even if one is a military genius and his plan has foreseen everything that could happen has the disadvantage that the sub-units have a longer orders delay than if they are getting orders from a closer HQ, and delays are amplified by distance.And a delay at any level of command can cause additional delays all down the line. For example, in the tutorial scenario, when Peiper AG arrived in the morning aroun 0800, since I was in a hurry to go out, I gave orders directly to the top HQ to attack St Vith a few km away. It was 3 PM before the attack got under way. One possible reason in addition to normal delays was air attacks by the enemy. Say the top HQ is hit by an air attack and routed before it has time to finish planning and transmitting its orders; then it could be hours before the whole AG is ready to execute the orders. The same can happen if an intermediae HQ is attacked while it is reorganizing or planning.
So it is probably usually preferable for the player (who is the top HQ) to do as they did in real life and to give orders two levels down. For a division HQ, this would mean giving orders down to the battalion level.Note that to give orders to a HQ (say a company) does not make you manage each component of the company. You would give an order like "attack" to a company HQ along with some parameters such as speed, depth and aggro, and the company commander would then give each platoon their orders, for instance, which units are in front and back etc.
Henri