DEI Question

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

Completely agree with Terminus on this one. While the current system does leave some historically defended bases undefended, breaking them down would have the effect of leaving all the bases undefended...

"He who defends everything defends nothing." --Sun Tzu

Most players would just have a PITA recombining all those units to defend the points he/she wants to...extra work for no extra benefit IMO.

[Andy Mac]

Sorry John I wasnt clear I was responding to K's point about preferring the whole enchilada at that scale I was pointing out given the Ais issues at co ordinating units it would struggle.
 
AI can cope with small scale units in smaller scenarios as it requires less co ordination.
 
However I am well aware that your scen is not intended to be v AI and thats fine I still want a look when its finished
 
Andy

[JWE]

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

[oldman45]

I think the way you laid it out does a fine job presenting the scenerio(s). While the game is packaged as stratigic/operational level, the scenerios you will be presenting are on a different level. Not quite tactical and not quite operational. There are people in our community that will relish the chance to defend the DEI and accept the fact that they will be dealing with problems they didn't have to in the core game. While its not my cup of tea, I believe this will be welcomed by those that enjoy a "George Custer" kind of tactical challange. [;)]

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.

In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.

The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.

Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.

Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.

Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.

So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on. Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.

JWE -

I am fired up as I read all of the above - this is very exciting! I usually play H2H solitaire; but have not thought of approaching a scenario as you describe in the last paragraph; I most certainly will give this style a go.

Awesome stuff - please keep on it; I am very interested in trying this one on for size. Am especially intrigued with the thought of separating the arty for the reasons given.

Gents -

All of your comments and insights are informative; let's see what a small unit scale scenario can do - the Babes Team is up to it!

Mac

" I am easily satisfied with the very best."

Winston Churchill

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

On a web page with a short write-up describing what's with the scenario. The forum is ill-suited for that. If you like I can look into one of the freebees like Google Sites.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

Sounds like a training scenario for DBB, if it can't be sold on its own.

However . . .

I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns. Back in the day such things were sometimes sold as add-ons with games fixes/improvements thrown in.

And if it's an ant-level scenario with the available engine, it might be better not to put too much emphasis on building units bigger than ants. Seems to me that the fun of this scenario might be trying to cover a lot of ground with nothing but ants. Other scenarios could look like covering an ant-farm with an armadillo and two porcupines, though that might not work out exactly outside the PTO.

Personally, for this game, I prefer one day orders. But if there is some thing about the two or three day time frame that you like, then make it part of the scoring system -- if that's possible. That is, if something has to happen in two or three days, give me each intervening day to figure out how to get there or face the consequences of not getting there.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

[Andy Mac]

PBEM yes could be lots of micro management though
 
Its probably to detailed for me personally but for a lot of folks it could be interesting and it would probably work

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

Kereguelen -

I certainly hope so!

Mac

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

I would absolutely love a game like that. The problem is just with a game engine limitation/proclivity, not at all with my preference. [:)]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

Are there enough land unit slots?

[Andy Mac]

Probably not

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

Are there enough land unit slots?

If one uses the slots in the lower part of the location database (not accessible via the stock editor but doable with a modified editor or with excel), yes. I'm currently testing if this does have any ill effects.

[akdreemer]

I would also look at creating seperate divisional/brigade HQ's to help with command aspects.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I would also look at creating seperate divisional/brigade HQ's to help with command aspects.

That's what I'm doing for the "Japanese Centrifugal Advance" scenario. Dropping the unit scale down an echelon or two requires dropping the HQ scale down accorgingly, to maintain the game relationship. The witch is that all the Div, Brig Grp, Brig leaders need to be tweaked in order to be selectable for a Div, Brig Grp, or Brig, HQ assignment. Woof!!

The basic scenario is done, and sent off to the group to play out, but there's tons of little things like this that have to be tweaked, before the scenario can be released to the gaming public. Should be getting some good feedback from the group and, combined with comments like AlaskanWarrior's, might be able to develop a fairly good, phase-1 kind of scenario, that will appeal to players on both sides.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns...

+1

My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns...

+1

My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

Oh, bucko! Bait your breath! This one is gonna be an absolute nad churning, wicked witch 'o the West, scenario; the best we can do. This scenario is not your little sister's AE.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: berto
My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

Oh, bucko! Bait your breath! This one is gonna be an absolute nad churning, wicked witch 'o the West, scenario; the best we can do. This scenario is not your little sister's AE.

I'd love to test this.

I'd die too for a later scenario, at this level of detail, covering Philippines 1944-45.

Heck, I'd give my right arm for a 1942-1944 Papua-New Guinea/Rabaul scenario.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: berto
My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

Oh, bucko! Bait your breath! This one is gonna be an absolute nad churning, wicked witch 'o the West, scenario; the best we can do. This scenario is not your little sister's AE.

I'd love to test this.

I'd die too for a later scenario, at this level of detail, covering Philippines 1944-45.

Heck, I'd give my right arm for a 1942-1944 Papua-New Guinea/Rabaul scenario.

double +1