Future Games for the AA Engine

[Mr.Frag]

While the west front has been done many times over, it has been done many times over because it SELLS which means Panther will make money so Panther can stay in business to produce some of the areas that are more risky.

Coupled with some cute one liners on the packaging linking movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers", I would expect them to do well in the stores. Remember that a lot of the people who buy these are not the actual end user, they are people buying gifts.

Obscure areas only sell directly to wargamers and loose out on the gift buying audience because they only buy things that *look* and *sound* interesting. Key words that help them relate it to something they may already know boost sales.

[JJKettunen]

I could be committing heresy here but if a campaign side to the game was constructed it would work well in a 'turn-based' environment - possibly in the 'wego' manner of Uncommon Valour and the Combat Mission series - leaving the actual battles to be resolved in 'real-time' in the AA fashion.

You know what...I had exactly the same idea in mind.

[MarkShot]

Here is the main problem I see with AA PBEM/WEGO, the turns would have to be of fixed length. Too short a duration and not enough is happening to make the turn cycle worthwhile. Too long a duration and critical junctures are missed. WEGO works well in CM(BO|BB) since they are games of extreme micro-management. I would further argue that for AA the optimum turn duration is really a function which side is playing and their particular strategy. I believe that the highly scalable nature of the AA engine would be compromised by the imposition of fixed length turns.

Now, if you have been reading my AAR/tutorial, you know that I do take a turn oriented approach to playing HTTR, but they are variable length turns defined by the specific considerations of the battle at hand. But how would one make that function in a two player environment?

A very interesting subject you gentlemen raise, but I'll have to ponder it another day. Back to my AAR/tutorial ...

[JJKettunen]

Here is the main problem I see with AA PBEM/WEGO, the turns would have to be of fixed length. Too short a duration and not enough is happening to make the turn cycle worthwhile. Too long a duration and critical junctures are missed. WEGO works well in CM(BO|BB) since they are games of extreme micro-management. I would further argue that for AA the optimum turn duration is really a function which side is playing and their particular strategy. I believe that the highly scalable nature of the AA engine would be compromised by the imposition of fixed length turns.

Now, if you have been reading my AAR/tutorial, you know that I do take a turn oriented approach to playing HTTR, but they are variable length turns defined by the specific considerations of the battle at hand. But how would one make that function in a two player environment?

A very interesting subject you gentlemen raise, but I'll have to ponder it another day. Back to my AAR/tutorial ...

I agree with your points, and therefore think that the best choise, if at all possible, would be an option for wego-turns, with user defined turn lengths. Although there are no optimal turn lengths, as you said, a wego PBEM-option would boost the popularity of the game significantly, IMO.

[Kevinugly]

Obviously there are issues to work around here and since we are looking at least a year into the future there is plenty of scope for discussion. It's the nature of command that is in question here I feel. The Corps commander is usually in direct contact with his troops, reacting to the changing situation at the front on a minute-by-minute basis. This is how AA works and it works extremely well. If a campaign mode (for want of a better term) is added this will obviously be at a higher level - Army or even Army-Group. Now, how often does a commander at this level issue orders? Certainly, except in extreme circumstances, not more regularly than a daily basis. Thus, the campaign level could be simulated by a turn-based system with the battles in real time. Then, of course, you run into problems of integration, especially with more than one battle going on at a time. But then that's Panther's mission, should they choose to accept it

[Arjuna]

I agree with your points, and therefore think that the best choise, if at all possible, would be an option for wego-turns, with user defined turn lengths. Although there are no optimal turn lengths, as you said, a wego PBEM-option would boost the popularity of the game significantly, IMO.

Keke,

Remember we're just human, not magicians. How would you propose we get the AI to handle variable length turns? Turns have been used in games to provide a "fixed" time interval that allows for certain "constants" to be applied. Making turns of variable length would invalidate that.

I really think the hang-up with turns is exactly that, a hang-up. What is needed is a shift in thinking and perception. A willingness to look at things in a new light. I have heard a lot of talk lately about how continuous timed game systems are only any good at the tactical or low scale operational level games, that to realistically simulate larger scale operational and strategic games you have to have a turned based system.

While this attitude is understandable given that turn based systems are what we have all grown up on, upon analysis you will find that there is little basis to support it. Sure in real life commanders at the higher levels intervened less frequently. But with the possible exception of Montgomery few adhered to a strict daily schedule. War is not like that. The enemy is not so obliging. RL commanders monitor constantly and intervene as required. They reassess and replan as and when the situation changes significantly. During the Cobra breakout Patton intervened and changed his plan several times on one day and didn't change it at all on others.

Moreover, "getting inside your opponent's command loop" is more important the higher the level of command, primarily because the orders delays in changing plans are longer and hence the more "surprise" that can be achieved. A turn based system cannot realistically simulate this aspect of command. It's course granularity works against it. Whereas a continuous time system can simulate it perfectly.

What I suspect underlies gamers perceptions on this issue is that they don't like the pressure of having to plan while developments are unfolding around them. They find this too stressful. It's not surprising, so too did many RL commanders. The successful ones learnt the importance of planning ahead, of accepting a certain amount of "friction" and "untidiness", of keeping a reserve and most importantly of keeping their focus on the big picture and the achievement of their goal. They learnt not to be distracted by small matters and resisted the temptation to intervene at too low a level and in non-critical areas.

The thing is, though, that in a pausable continuous time system ( PCT ) such as HTTR you can always pause the game, call time out and do your planning. You can have your cake and eat it.

As far as popularity is concerned, we would love to sell heaps and heaps of games and have a huge user base. However, we are in for the long haul. I personnally believe that to tack on a turn based system would effectively cobble the game system. It would then lead to user demand for modifications to further support the turn based approach. This is not a direction we want to take.

I strongly believe that PCT is the way of the future. It will take time and a fair amount of evangelism to shift peoples attitudes. But once you have played our system, the way it should be played, once you have finished a game, leaned back in your chair and said "wow, that was the best wagame I have ever played" you will be converted. We're counting on this snowballing effect. It's early days, but the revolution is underway.

[Kevinugly]

Thanks Dave for taking the time out to express your opinions at length. I'm not sure I agree with you on all the points you made about Generalship but then you wouldn't expect me to would you . I think guys like Patton and Rommel were the exception rather than the rule. I recently read Field-Marshal William Slim's account of his campaigns in India and Burma in which he talks about formulating plans but leaving the detail to his Corps commanders (it's a good read whatever). Obviously, none of us wants or expects you to 'bolt-on' a turn based campaign system to the AA engine but then it's not as if you'll be releasing a game with that functionality in the immediate future. Plenty of time for debate and development eh!

[Fred98]

This game is continuous time. At the operational level this is unique.

If the game were changed to turn based it would blend with all the others. It’s a silly idea.

I loved Close Combat - which had no pause function. To Close Combat players, “pause” is almost cheating. Pause should be optional

Is it optional or not?

When you play against a human, how does pause work? The other player might think there is a problem with the internet connection.

So, how does pause work in a H2H game?

-

[Arjuna]

Joe,

In multiplayer, both players can set their preferred speed ( paused, slow, normal or fast ). Whichever is the slowest will apply. Eg. I am playing you and you set the game to run fast, but i set it to Normal. Then it will run at Normal for both of us. You can tell which from the following picture.



So if you then pause, the game will be paused for both us. We can both still review and plan, but no action takes place.

The notion of "cheating" is not so relevant with orders delay as it is still going to take time to process and implement whatever orders you issue, regardless of whether the game is paused or not. Moreover, even at slow speed the game is running much faster than "real time".

[Arjuna]

Sorry about the placement of that image. Obviously I still haven't got the hang of the new forum software.

[JJKettunen]

Dave,

There's no doubt that PCT offers ultimate realism, but what I simply miss is a game against human opponents without having to be online at the same time. I, for example, am behind a such monstrous firewall that it causes problems with most online games. I don't know anything about coding, so it may be impossible to implement any kind of a PBEM-system. On the other hand the AI does such decent job, that this game system is the only one that offers reasonable opponent for single play.

[JJKettunen]

I'll elaborate my take on possible wego-option for AA-engine. I just disregard the fact if it is possible to implement or not.

After agreeing with his fellow gamer what would be the proper fixed turn length for a scenario, player 1 sets it (FE 15 minutes of game time). Player 1 sets his orders for the first turn, sends PBEM-file to player 2, who set then his own orders. File back to player 1 who watches the action, sends the file to player 2, who watches and gives new orders (if there's any need for it). The file back to player 1 who in his turn gives new orders or adjust old ones, sends the file to player 2 who checks the action before sending the turn back...and this cycle goes on until the scenario ends. Obviously much of the finesse of PCT is lost, but there's no need to be online at the same time.

[MarkShot]

Keke,

I agree that if you target a strategy game to the MP market, then the presence of PBEM greatly strengthens the offering over just direct connect.

The problem for the AA engine is that the inclusion of PBEM and turns (fixed or variable) would change the very nature of the game itself. It's not simply a design and technical implementation challenge. For example, the inclusion of an in game OOB Navigator could be added and would mainly represent a technical challenge, but the nature of the game itself would be not be impacted. The same cannot be said of PBEM support.

---

I don't think it is possible to work out an acceptable time duration per turn. A couple of examples:

(1) Player-A is the attacker and Player-B is the defender. Player-B chooses to implement a largely static and layered defense. Player-A chooses to probe, maneuver, and mass at weak points. Player-A would certainly be favored by shorter turn durations which permit better use of single unit recon, rerouting large forces, and exploiting opportunities. Player-B would certainly be favored by longer turn durations as the less the attacker knows about the defenses the harder they will be to penetrate.

(2) I am playing a scenario where I have say 5 brigades at my command primarily to attack. My strategy will be to use 1 brigade to block enemy reinforcements, use 3 brigades to attack, and 1 brigade to be held in reserve. The attack orders will be issued to brigade level or larger formations and the time frame to evaluate results and replan could be anywhere from 8-16 hours. On the other hand, the blocking of reinforcements will probably be handled at the battalion level or company level. The time frame to evaluate results and replan could be anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours. Thus, even in one game on the same side, it is hard to set an appropriate turn duration.

As seen in example #2, the inclusion of a formal turn concept could well break the inherent scalability which exists in the AA engine. In my estimation, the scalability of the AA engine is one of the greatest contributions Panther has made to this genre and represents a key selling point for this game/series.

---

It's too bad, because I would like to see the AA engine achieve the largest possible market. But I think if given the choice of PCT-SP/MP or WEGO on my cell phone, I'll take the former. However, if Dave prefers the latter, then they should definitely include a warning with the game: "Warning Panther Games does not advise the operation of heavy equipment or a vehicle while using this product."

[JJKettunen]

As seen in example #2, the inclusion of a formal turn concept could well break the inherent scalability which exists in the AA engine. In my estimation, the scalability of the AA engine is one of the greatest contributions Panther has made to this genre and represents a key selling point for this game/series.

Mark and others,

Please note that I'm talking about an option for wego, not about replacing PCT with it altogether.

[Arjuna]

Mark and others,

Please note that I'm talking about an option for wego, not about replacing PCT with it altogether.

Keke,

Thanks for your suggestions. I do realise and appreciate why you would like this feature. However, it is unlikely to get a guernsey, I'm afraid. As Mark has commented, it would effectively sidetrack the development of the game. We here would rather put our resources into other features that would enhance the PCT system, such as Team Play etc.

[Kevinugly]

However, it is unlikely to get a guernsey, I'm afraid.

As a 'rural Pom', where does "... unlikely to get a guernsey... " come from? (Guernsey being a small British island just off the coast of France as far as I'm concerned)

[Arjuna]

Accoring to the Australian Macquarie Dictionery one of the definitions for guernsey is a "distinctively coloured or marked top worn by footballers". So the term "to get a guernsey" means you have been selected for the team or you are going to succeed.

I might add one of the other definitions is "a breed of dairy cattle" and this is probably true as well.

[RayWolfe]

Accoring to the Australian Macquarie Dictionery one of the definitions for guernsey is a "distinctively coloured or marked top worn by footballers". So the term "to get a guernsey" means you have been selected for the team or you are going to succeed.

I might add one of the other definitions is "a breed of dairy cattle" and this is probably true as well.

Fascinating! Another breed of cattle, which comes from another Channel Island, is a Jersey, which used to be the name of footballers’ top. So there are two of the Channel Islands, which have given names to cattle, and both names are also used for sports tops but one in Britain and one in Australia. Wonderful how language evolves.
And we expect Americans to understand all this … :p
Ray

[JJKettunen]

Keke,

Thanks for your suggestions. I do realise and appreciate why you would like this feature. However, it is unlikely to get a guernsey, I'm afraid. As Mark has commented, it would effectively sidetrack the development of the game. We here would rather put our resources into other features that would enhance the PCT system, such as Team Play etc.

Fair enough. I'll get back to this when you got a magician working for peanuts.

[Arjuna]

Fascinating! Another breed of cattle, which comes from another Channel Island, is a Jersey, which used to be the name of footballers’ top. So there are two of the Channel Islands, which have given names to cattle, and both names are also used for sports tops but one in Britain and one in Australia. Wonderful how language evolves.

Actually, we Australians interchange the words guernsey and jersey. So that's probably the derivation.

And we expect Americans to understand all this … :p

Naturally!