Future Directions - Features

[Lieste]

And this wouldn't change - just that the 'front line' objectives would expire at a point that might relate to the success of your forces under command, rather than inexplicably fall back. Sometimes this falling back is appropriate, as conditions developing on a flank might require a re-alignment, but for the 'chokepoint' battles, defending the 'only' local crossings it seems to emphasise 'design/history' over the course of action.

The second line objectives would become 'live' at the point where exploiting to them makes sense, rather than diverting troops from actually completing the first objectives at all.
Players automatically make these adjustments - you garrison the rear areas once the objectives are live, (or even before that if the front has collapsed), but if you are in good condition probably use Bases/HQ/Artillery, leaving the line troops continuing to hold/delay @ the expired crossing etc. front line positions until you need to yield them. The AI only knows it's current objectives, and has no concept that a blocking position actually secures everything else so it worth holding even after it 'should' have fallen and is no longer 'live'.

Hmm, in fact I feel that secure should really mean more 'deny' than garrison - I don't need to occupy a bridge site to deny it to the enemy if it is behind my FLOT & his closest troops are 20km away after all. I can either screen the location with combat troops, occupy the site with troops, or place sufficient fire onto the site to deny access/safety to his forces, preventing movement into/through the area... each would IRL be adequate for some form of occupy/secure/deny, but we only have the 'sit on the target and wait' as our scoring/planning options for the AI and mission success.

[nestor]

Not sure if this thread is still open for business, but if it is...

I would really like to see some tools in the Scenmaker to assist the designer in getting the AI to mount a credible defence from prepared positions - at the moment there is too much wandering about by the AI and units lose their dug in/entrenchment status as a consequence. Often that status is the only thing standing between them and annihilation by artillery.

2 suggestions:

Fixed units - the scenario designer could specify that a unit can't move from its starting position until a certain criteria is met. i.e. until attacked, until a certain day/time or until a VL/AI objective is threatened/attacked/secured etc. Ideally the designer could specify multiple criteria for each unit. Not a new idea, I know (I remember it was a feature of the first John Tiller Talonsoft games I played), but I think it would be incredibly helpful to have in Command Ops.

Initial orders - the ability to set an order in Scenmaker rather than have all units 'Waiting' at scenario start. I was thinking primarily of a Defend in situ order to aid the defensive AI, but I guess this could potentially be useful for the AI in offensive planning as well.

[Arjuna]

nestor,

The second option is the better one. Thanks.

[Lieste]

Obstacles - non-lethal (Deliberate Craters/LogCribs/Rubbled Buildings/etc). All of these hampered the early stages of the advance across the Our in 352 VGD areas. They require a brief halt while they are reduced for vehicles to cross, it isn't unheard of for damaged vehicles, or the narrow streets/heavy vehicles to effectively block forces movement on routes either. Could be done as part of or alongside implementing:

Weight limits on bridges, width limits on roads etc. While the truism that tracked vehicles have superior mobility to wheeled ones is good to follow generally, it neglects the problems that the increasing sizes of these had on operational mobility - a PzVIB just isn't going to be able to use the same bridges or narrow routes that could be negotiated by a simple 2.5t truck, or even a PzIVJ. I would note that although ferries are slower than using an existing bridge, they are faster to emplace than a fixed bridge if the right equipments are available, and can be built to carry any conceivable load (although at a very slow rate in elements per hour).  As bridges need to be built to take the vehicle sizes planned, it might not be sufficient to 'just upgrade' an existing light bridge, or to open a light bridge while continuing to complete the structure for heavy vehicles. An option could be to require a medium or heavy bridge to be built 'directly' or on a Medium base, rather than using a narrower 'light' structure as a base, also to consider closing the bridge during expansion work - at the very least consider the bridge 'a traffic jam' during the building periods.

[BletchleyGeek]

I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

[Lieste]

I wouldn't be terribly interested in actually using a(n external) WEGO option, but I  would be keen on a 'save force' option, that includes all soft factors such as ammunition, and potentially location(?) (essentially making a 'new scenario' feasible from the current position - my interest is to simplify planning/AAR analysis (rather than extract this information from 2-3 screens from each element and manually input into a SS), but I can see the potential to 'kill' a scenario, and commit to a new plan with reserves/replacements, and continue either as the same side, or to choose to swap from e.g. a Defense against a German attack, to Defense against a US counter-attack, or to extract a fragment, modify forces to deterministically 'fix' the outcome of an attack/defense - perhaps as Frei Kriegspeil, perhaps by playing it out in another system, and returning the results).

I feel that most tactical 'games' are not likely to produce meaningful results, as casualty levels/tempo are usually far too high, but the 'in-game' scenario updating on-the-fly to reflect changed circumstances and simplified/improved analysis & reporting seem useful.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

I agree pbem would be great.
If there was a way to run for an hour, stop, and email to an opponent who then runs for an hour and emails back that would be something.

For this to work you should be able to replay your opponent's hour (with FOW), and then continue your turn.

[Lieste]

Rearrange the Estab format to present ammunition/gun specific information, possibly for an arbritary number of ammunition types (perhaps by gun for each ammunition nature?)

Attach the ammunition type/qty to the carrier, not the firing tube.

Currently if I want a 17pr gun firing APCBC and HE, I might need to specify the following types (all of which have similar performance - so much redundant information and huge possibilities for errors).

17pr AT gun - with limber carried ammunition.
17pr AT gun in Archer (39rds)
17pr AT gun in A30 Avenger (55rds)
17pr AT gun in A30 Challenger (42rds)
17pr AT gun in Achilles (50rds)
17pr AT gun in Firefly (77rds)

This doesn't include AT/Apers heavy loadout options, the possibility for some or all of a platoon's vehicles having APDS rounds - the characteristics of which don't work 'well' when merged with the APCBC. If that were taken to be 2 loadouts per vehicle, with the APDS being used for the AT bias for 1 vehicle in each unit... then there might need to be 18 different versions of a single gun... Some could be considered 'close-enough' to allow eg Challenger and Archer, or Achilles and Avenger to share a single value, and the APCBC versions could use a 'mid-weight' ammunition loadout, with the APDS vehicle in addition. But this still calls for 8 'guns' to describe 3 ammunition types fired from 6 vehicles (which would be described as 12 vehicles to split the APDS from APCBC... and so much data is still being copied/duplicated or information lost).

I might be in a minority caring whether the Challenger is correctly shown to be a moderate effectiveness interim vehicle, compared to the Firefly - in game they are directly equivalent - and this appears to be almost entirely due to the poor stowage allowed in the A30.

Ideally, I would like to be able to specify an AArm and Apers performance for each ammunition type modelled, per gun type - so I might have several marques of 25pr, or a gun with poor sights/excellent sights which would modify the accuracy levels.
The vehicle would have a stowage capacity for the gun, and the unit &/or scenario would specify the ammunition types and amounts approved, and in chain of supply.

It should also be possible to define a "stowage slot" with no firepower attached, but containing specified ammunition under armour - eg the M30/Hummel MunitionsPz etc currently their ammunition is ever-ready on the firing platform, and they amount to no more than 'extra' HMG platforms.

[Lieste]

I'd have to add support for stopping daylight supply runs (both out and back) to certain units near the front, or when troops are intermingled.

With short-visibility ranges (terrain &/or weather) units are typically much closer than the 'survivable' range for supply columns, particularly if Estab accuracy/rof values are higher than baseline. If there is even 'fleeting' or tenuous visibility they will suffer frequent losses (typically only small numbers, but there can be many 'silly' runs with a single truck and 50-60kg of food every hour, which will very quickly eliminate any meaningful supply capacity).

More annoying is where an OOS unit has been pulled back by the AI (due to excessive suppression and no capability to respond == very good) it gets a supply run, and immediately recommences the attack... at which point the departing trucks which are still 'attached' until they 'reach the base' get hammered.

[CaptCarnage]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

I agree pbem would be great.
If there was a way to run for an hour, stop, and email to an opponent who then runs for an hour and emails back that would be something.

For this to work you should be able to replay your opponent's hour (with FOW), and then continue your turn.

This is something that is implemented in Histwar Les Grognards, which is a similar game for Napoleonic battles, in realtime and order delays. PBEM is in 15 minute increments.

[Phoenix100]

Anyone have any opinions on the above mentioned Histwar? First I've heard of it. I checked out the site and it did look a little similar - like a cross of various games, but, crucially, it looked like it has AI which can handle subordinate command. Is that right? So is it any use/worth buying? Has anyone in here played it? What did anyone think of it and how it compares to BFTB, the different epoques aside?

[springel]

I played the demo, way back at the first release, when there were still many bugs, and a few months ago.

It looks interesting, but my time is limited and with Command Ops and Combat Mission my hobby time is full already.

I advise you to download the demo and play. You can spend quite some time with that demo and get a good impression of the game before you decide whether to buy.

[CaptCarnage]

I have histwar and I play it from time to time.

If you want a comparison taking different epochs aside: it's pretty similar. You give orders to corps or to single units, like in Command Ops. There's order delay, fog of war etc., and it has 3D representation instead of just a map.
Taking epochs into account, infantry forms squares to cavalry attacks, calvary pursues routing troops, etc. etc. Require different tactis but it models early 19th Century warfare quite well.

Although Command Ops does not have 3D (don't think it needs it anyway), it does feel a bit more polished than Histwar. I have both and enjoy both because of the difference in tactics.

[wgs_explorer]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Reworking the map coding to allow more than the current 16 height levels.

Dave,

Do you see an expansion of the number of height levels in the game at some time in the future? I think this would be quite a good addition. It would allow for more areas to be modeled and fought over!

Bill

[Arjuna]

Bill,

We are at the max data size for layers with our current map engine. Changing that would be a big deal. I'd rather replace the entire GIS engine so that it could take in industry standard GIS data formats. Then we could do some real facy things.

[johndoesecond]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Bill,

I'd rather replace the entire GIS engine so that it could take in industry standard GIS data formats. Then we could do some real facy things.

[Perturabo]

One thing that would be great would be a random battle generator.

[Pawsy]

Campaign mode with carry over units experience etc

Eastern front

One thing I haven't seen in a game is the ability to give formations 'boundary's' would be a very authentic way of bring command and control to the battle field

Break down companies into platoons. German doctrine used out posts and depth to provide recce screen and pak fronts

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

One thing I haven't seen in a game is the ability to give formations 'boundary's' would be a very authentic way of bring command and control to the battle field

Yeah, real C&C measures would be awesome.

[Pawsy]

Pause option on reinforcement - so I dont miss giving them orders Do they still have zero delay for 1 sec on entry like the start of the scenario?