RPS impressions

[wodin]

Rock Paper Shotgun impressions of the HTTR exp. Very good, though I disagree with him that the ultimate MG hasn't been made yet...

However his request for a new feature where you could plan where your troops airdrop is a superb idea and would like he said other limitless re-playability.

LINK

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: wodin
However his request for a new feature where you could plan where your troops airdrop is a superb idea and would like he said other limitless re-playability.

LINK

Getting alternate scenarios considering different DZ's and all I think would be a nice project for the community.

I mean, the concluding remark sounds to me as the writer picking at nits because he couldn't really point his finger at anything (this thing of "always mention one good thing and one bad thing in order to read as fair and balanced".

I mean, having a "strategic" front-end for scenario selection, that allowed you to designate what division went to which DZ's as well as the schedule - subjected to the availability of transport aircraft - would be a nice feature.

But it's out of the scope of the Command Ops engine.

[headcount_slith]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I mean, the concluding remark sounds to me as the writer picking at nits because he couldn't really point his finger at anything (this thing of "always mention one good thing and one bad thing in order to read as fair and balanced".

I've been grumbling about Panther's reluctance to 'go 3D' for many years (some WWII General Commander-style lumps and bumps would make reading battlefields so much easier!). I thought it would make a nice change to gripe about something else.

Seriously though, when you stop to think about it, isn't the absence of player-selectable DZs/LZs in an engine that once specialised in airborne ops, a nit worth picking? It's not as if the AI routines couldn't cope.

Wargaming is all about 'what-ifs', no? HTTR, by starting its scenarios just before or just after the paras and glider troops have hit the ground, cuts itself off from some of Market Garden's most fascinating 'what-ifs':

tm.asp?m=595122&mpage=1&key=Arnhem%2CCr ... AR&#595122

[wodin]

I do think choosing your own LZ is a great idea..Panther games scenario makers aren't shy in making What ifs either..so it wouldn't clash with their design philosophy.

If you want a 3D map try battle Command..he is making an AI at the moment.. however be prepared for alot of UI headaches...if he had a professional team with him the game would be amazing. I tried to set it up between Matrix and the developer..Matrix where interested so I got them in touch with each other...then he goes and turns them down just like that. He wanted me to go around drumming p support and maybe getting a publisher I told him again and again what he needed to do and in the end when he blew Matrix out after me doing a load of running about I gave in and haven't bothered contacting him again. All that being said the 3d maps are superb and if he gets an AI going it will be an excellent game and it's the sort of map that would suit this engine to a tee.

[JiminyJickers]

Yeah, I definitely agree with Tim.

I don't play wargames because I want the same exact outcome of history. I wan't to play in the historical setting but everything else should be changeable.

[JeffroK]

I am happy with playing from the historical LZ/DZ.
This is Market-Garden, not Varsity or Comet or some other fictional battle.
If you want, we could get the battle of the Bulge moved somewhere else if you want.

I see the challenge as being from the historical set up, work out how to make the best use of my men, not completly change the set up and make a new game.

HOWEVER, I would love to see scenario with alternate landing sites, 1st Airborne or 82nd AIrborne landing in better locations.

[wodin]

jeffK you contradicted yourself there. I' like both. I just think having an option to decide where you want to drop your troops (an option that is) would increase re playability even more. Also there should be a random scatter element so even if you choose a place not all troops are likely to land there.

I suppose you'd have the option (similar to the reinforcement options) before you start the scenario but you are shown the map and you can click and drag an area you want the different para troops to drop it. Or you stick with historical.

[Arjuna]

I agree with Tim that having the ability to specify your own drop zones would be a cool ferature. However, it involves a fair bit of development work to achieve. First off we need to introduce a scheduling phase at the start of the scenario that allows the Allied player to set the LZs and DZs. We need a UI to set the locations and some method to assign the forces to these locations. We need AI smarts to filter out bad location choices ( like trying to land gliders in woods ) and to ensure that gliders are not assigned to DZs but to LZs. We also need to provide a UI method to set the SEP locations and rates of supplies. these can vary according to the number of troops they are expected to supply and thus we need AI smarts to adjust these if the player gets it wrong. So it's not all plain sailing and as always thewre is a million and one other priorities competing for attention. Maybe next time. [:)]

[Arjuna]

Oh BTW most of the scenarios come with different reinforcement schedules based on the four different reinfocement types (historical, standard, favour us and favour them ). Many of these have alternate DZ/LZ locations. With the SM you can freely create your own shcules, setting your own locations. So there is nothing stopping you from setting alternative scehdules. You just need to do it first in the ScenMaker and save the scenario under a different name.

[JudgeDredd]

I think rather than "limit" the idea to user selectable drop zones I've always wanted to see a reinforcement related point - where reinforcements turned up or didn't turn up depending on whether a location was available. For example, to use HTTR and LZs - having the brits required to hold an LZ - and if it was overrun, then the reinforcements would not show...or in the case of normaly land battles, having reinforcements held at bay becauase a particular route was closed off by the enemy.

One thing that brought this to my attention some time ago was actually creating a "We Were Soldiers" LZ X-Ray type battle (not in this engine - in CMBO I think) where the US started with some troops, had to push out under increasing enemy fire to expand the LZ and then have the reinforcements show IF the 4 victory points were held. I think I got a fair way into the scenario - and stopped because the reinforcements were going to show anyway.

I DID mention this to Dave a looooooooooong time ago - I think it was when I was doing my Cyprus scenario - I was looking at forcing the Germans to hold the LZs so that reinforcements could arrive on day 2....this would keep some German soldiers pinned for a very important task - iirc I was informed that they would be unlikely to know if the LZ had been captured or not and therefore would drop in the same place anyway...so my idea was scuppered. [;)]

[Arjuna]

JD,

That would require us to implement triggers. I was almoist going to do that for the upcoming East Front title but instead I opted to do realistic mounted ops as this would enable us to model soviet tank riders and cavalry, which are pretty important on the east front. But once that gets done we will most likely do triggers along with sequential tasking and contingency plans. So we can then add this as well.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: wodin

jeffK you contradicted yourself there. I' like both. I just think having an option to decide where you want to drop your troops (an option that is) would increase re playability even more. Also there should be a random scatter element so even if you choose a place not all troops are likely to land there.

I suppose you'd have the option (similar to the reinforcement options) before you start the scenario but you are shown the map and you can click and drag an area you want the different para troops to drop it. Or you stick with historical.

Almost , but not quite.

I think we would wait a long time (as hinted) for the flexiblity of chosing our own landing sites.

I would like someone to mod different sites to put forward some alternates.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: RPS_Tim
I've been grumbling about Panther's reluctance to 'go 3D' for many years (some WWII General Commander-style lumps and bumps would make reading battlefields so much easier!). I thought it would make a nice change to gripe about something else.

Seriously though, when you stop to think about it, isn't the absence of player-selectable DZs/LZs in an engine that once specialised in airborne ops, a nit worth picking? It's not as if the AI routines couldn't cope.

Wargaming is all about 'what-ifs', no? HTTR, by starting its scenarios just before or just after the paras and glider troops have hit the ground, cuts itself off from some of Market Garden's most fascinating 'what-ifs':

tm.asp?m=595122&mpage=1&key=Arnhem%2CCr ... AR򑒲

You said it well: "that once specialized in airborne ops". And regarding what if's, we have a nifty scenario editor, as I already wrote. That this ability to explore counterfactual doesn't come in a spoon for people to gobble effortless certainly looks to me as a "picking at nits" [:)]