Coordinating Attacks

[barbarossa2]

“Attack Launch Time” or “Mission Launch Time”

I was playing HTTR last night and found coordination of assaults from multiple units in multiple directions to be... next to impossible. Orders delay, and unit reorganization, etc. made it so that I could issue the orders in the morning or afternoon, and have some units readied by nightfall, and then they would attack...while others were still organizing, or thinking about organizing.

Don't get me wrong! I LOVE the game. I also know it is a work of art in progress. And I am happy to finance the construction of my Mother of All Wargames over a ten year period with regular $40 to $50 investments.

But I would love to have a "mission launch time,” which could be issued in the assault order or other orders. As the game is currently designed, the penultimate waypoint in an assault order is the assembly point and units move onto the final waypoint. I think it should be relatively simple to attach a small text box to the final way point to indicate a “mission launch time” which indicates the time that the force will leave the penultimate (organization) waypoint. If a player clicks on the box, he may enter a time. This would be the time which units would cross the line of demarcation. If the units were not formed up by the time the "go" time passed, then they would simply make preparations as usual, and "go" as soon as ready. However, if they had already organized, they would simply wait until the time came.

This way, I could tell different battalions and different brigades to attack at, say 0600 with orders issued at 1800 the previous evening. They would all get and digest their orders, march to the appropriate locations at their own damned lazy speeds, and set up. Then they would wait. And when 0600 hit, they would all swing into action at the same time.

As it is now, units are committed piecemeal, and some are in the thick of things while others are lazily deciding on if they even want to participate.

Seems like a simple fix for this problem. But, I could be WAAAAAY wrong.

It is unfortunate that this will probably have to wait until BftB. As it is, I have seen and played so many Bulge and Market Garden games from various companies, that I was hoping that I would, for once, have the opportunity to play a little gamed, but fascinating campaign for Crete with a relatively realistic game engine.

To me, and to my father (a General's Aide in 1960s Germany, who loves to drop by and give me commands while I am playing...he is also fascinated by this system, but is computer shy) the ability to launch coordinated assaults should have come before the "hyper realistic" supply system which has graciously been introduced by the excellent, inspired, and damned hard working staff at Panther Games (now my favorite gaming company in the world). It is probably first and foremost a combat simulation, not a logistics simulation. If logistics simulations were so in, the FedEx package tracking program would be a big seller. However, I really do believe that the supply system is taking a HUGE step in the direction which will make this one of, if not THE greatest operational gaming experience of all time.

I am not a programmer and as such could be waaaaay wrong, but allowing us to attach a "wait until launch time XX:XX" to the penultimate waypoint or final waypoint can't be a massive undertaking. I was hoping to go out and start pushing this game on my friends who were all anxious to start playing, as they had never heard of it. And I told them that I hoped that the few problems in HTTR would be ironed out by CotA and that they could...no, MUST... purchase then. Being able to enter a launch time is certainly a "killer application" and central to the process of making modern war.

It may be that adding unit coordination may be more complicated than adding a "go time" to the penultimate or final waypoint. And, there are better, more realistic, and more complicated (and hence flexible) solutions for this than what I proposed to be a quick fix. And I would completely understand how these would have to be developed over the next one or two releases. I was hoping that the idea that I came up with was simple enough for someone to say, "hey, that's simple" and code it in a few minutes. You know..."wait to launch attack until such and such a time". But if it is not, that's just that.

You know, it's easy for us (me) to sit around and pump out wish lists, but Panther is the genius. Their genius lies in their actual execution of their dream, rather than sitting around and pumping out wish lists like me. So, once again hats off...

[&o][&o][&o]

Thanks Panther

[oi_you_nutter]

when can we have it ?

[&o]<grovel>[&o]<plead>[&o]<grovel a bit more>

[barbarossa2]

I would love to ask if everyone who thinks this issue is serious, and would like to see a simple fix for it sooner than later wouldn't mind...well...grovelling.

How about a whole darned string of people grovelling? Maybe we can get across the point that this is an important feature to us. All of us.

so... look at me... I'm grovelling at the feet of Panther Games! Gimme coordinated launch times!

[&o][&o][&o]

[MarkShot]

I would also like to see such a feature, but this is why I don't intend to grovel or lobby for it at this time.

First, I don't believe the incorporation of this feature is as trivial as you would believe. Some examples:

(1) You would need to know how much the force delay will be when providing this feature and associated implicit tasks. Right now, the force delay is only accurately available after one full order propagation for the force.

(2) You would need to address for realism whether such precise time oriented knowledge for planning was realistic.

(3) You would need to address what happens when a force fails to be ready for its launch, then what do its peers do.

(4) You would need to address what happens if an attach/dettach is done, then what do the peers do.

(5) You would need to address if coordination also involves the synchronized commitment of reserves.

All of the above would require discussion, design, programming and testing. It's more than simply adding a field to the parameter box and an if/then/else statement to the attack code.

Second, PG never does anything half-*ss and expedient. If it is to be done, it will be done with class. This largely explains why the game has yet to go on sale. When Dave did mix-mode movement (meaning truly making a distinction between foot and motorized units) and supply, he never looked at the calendar, but just what he knew in his mind's eye would make them as close to perfect as he could get them.

Third, it is time to finish COTA and release it. Like any business PG needs a revenue stream. That only happens by having a product to sell.

PG is very atune to its customers, but faces the same pressures as every other game developer. So, no one should feel slighted if their request even made with the most extreme and humbling form of groveling doesn't appear in COTA. Although the Beta Team has never tried kowtowing to Dave, so you never know if that might be what it takes to move him.

[MarkShot]

I forgot to add one thing.

I can say from personal experience that COTA is still going to be fun and rewarding to play even without this feature. In the same way that HTTR was fun and rewarding without mixed mode movement and supply. Would HTTR been a better game with those features too? Without a doubt, yes. But even without those features, HTTR set a new standard and COTA will do no less.

[barbarossa2]

Thanks for your time and excellent AARs Mark Shot,

All points well taken. And I would like to thank you for your post in response to this issue in the AAR section as well.

And, as you say, it may simply not be realizable and just isn't practical for CotA. And I thank you for the explanations of problems in coding that might arise. Well, I am am a grown up adult of legal voting, drinking, and consenting age...and hence, I will continue to grovel like one...

[&o]

Thanks Panther for the effort with this masterpiece in the works! I will continue to support you. And I have decided that I will, in fact, highly recommend this game to my friends, including the upcoming CotA, in "no orders delay" mode. Which I realized last night solves this problem! Why? Because units can apparently be ordered into action immediately like this.

I wanted everything at once: orders delays *and* coordination. And I just can't have it! That may be life. And I accept Rome wasn't built in a day.

But lookie at me grovel!

[&o][&o][&o]

[;)]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Although the Beta Team has never tried kowtowing to Dave, so you never know if that might be what it takes to move him.

So far my SOP of declaring a particular feature I want "probably too difficult for you to program anyway" and "if you need some help, Daniel will explain it all to you" keeps working, so I'm sticking to it [:D]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Punch]

You do of course realise that "Daniel will explain it to you" quickly becomes "Daniel will do it for you", don't you [;)]

J/K, it's all good. I'm loving this job.

Dave mentioned in the "New Features for COTA" thread that this feature wouldn't be present in COTA, but that it'll be looked into for BFTB. There is a huge list of things we want to put in (seriously... I took a quick look at the "For next game" list the other day... I almost died of shock...) but we can't really introduce any further feature creep at this point. We're into "Kill the last bugs" mode. As MarkShot mentioned above there are many reason's why it's not quite as simple as just dumping the feature in. Beyond the technical reasons he gave, the effects on gameplay could be quite far reaching, and the effect on the AI programming could induce a whole new slew of bugs (I know, even though it doesn't seem like it should these things never pan out as easily as you think they will).

That being said, I find your idea interesting and I can assure you that Dave reads these forums regularly and completely (when he has Internet access), so the suggestions will be noted.

Nice grovelling though. I've got some grapes around somewhere that you could peel for me if you really wanted to get in my good books [;)]

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: Punch
Nice grovelling though. I've got some grapes around somewhere that you could peel for me if you really wanted to get in my good books [;)]

That's nothing, just check out my grovelling to get the game released;



It is a good idea though.. maybe in the next game.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Banquet

ORIGINAL: Punch
Nice grovelling though. I've got some grapes around somewhere that you could peel for me if you really wanted to get in my good books [;)]

That's nothing, just check out my grovelling to get the game released;



It is a good idea though.. maybe in the next game.

And the groveller award of 2006 goes to .... Banquet! [:D]

[Banquet]

Woohooo.. I always knew I'd be good at something! [:D]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Punch
You do of course realise that "Daniel will explain it to you" quickly becomes "Daniel will do it for you", don't you [;)]

Man, you *are* a fast learner [:D]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx