Matrix Games Forums

Just trying to bump this for a status check.This project still moving along?

I am also quite interested in this game. Any news?

Hey guys.. in a bit of a holding pattern on this one right now until I see where the CO-2 engine ends up going. I'd hate to have to re-do a bunch of work because of an engine change.

Bil

Just speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't hold back if I were you.

The plans for this game are always very slow, much slower than the published timeline. I have always understood the reasons behind the delays, including the current delays, but they still happen. Meanwhile, you could have your pack completed, polished and published; ie making money, before any of the future plans are even set in motion.

And I didn't really see a great reception to the future "pack" release schedule from quite a few of the fellows on this forum, so odds on that will go through a few rethinks and reschedulings before things are set in full motion too.

At the moment, as you say, you are just sitting in a holding pattern.

I would love you to complete it way ahead of schedule, Bil. Your project is the one I'm most looking forward to. I can't wait to try the engine at that level. Get it done with the present engine, sell it, if it needs upgrading to engine 2 then charge a small amount for the upgrade. I think sapperastro is very right about the schedules.

I appreciate where you guys are coming from.. let me mull this over, do some homework and I'll get back to you.

Bil.. personally I'd rather you hold off...the game will be better for it mate. Patience is a virtue.

It will only be better if the Command Ops engine changes make things better, and only when that happens, Jason. When is key. Everything takes so long anyway. It's a small company, it's vulnerable to chance. Nothing can be happening now, for instance, whilst Dave is (perfectly understandably) out of action. And even without any hold-ups of this sort, did anyone really think that the published schedule was realistic? Given past experience - and without any criticism, because all the reasons are perfectly understood - I can't see why anyone wouldn't have automatically added a year to the suggested timetable, at least. And I write as a long-term big-time fan of this game, one who buys everything Dave puts out. The schedule put Bil's game almost at the end of the list. So if Bil sticks to that I would expect to see LOTB - seriously - around 2016. If Bil can get it out quicker with the present engine then why not? I'm playing quite happily (subject to all the usual discussions about improvements) with the present engine.

And, you don't play this game at the moment, do you Jason? (I seem to recall you saying that) I ask because I think that's relevant to your opinion about whether or not something will be better for waiting, not as any form of criticism. Take my words at face value! [:)]

phoenix, you have said everything I would have said already.

My first thought when I saw the published schedule by Arjuna was "indeed...need to add a couple of years onto this, once it is actually finalised" which I don't, for a minute, believe to be the case. Dave the perfectionist tends to take longer than the schedule, even without any hiccups or new jobs, by a large cut.

Just the nature of the beast with this game, hence why I am more than happy to see people like Bil H et al make some fine gaming come true for this brilliant engine, nearer to now if possible, rather than waiting until (insert date), and allow me to open my wallet all the quicker and get to that tactical fighting on the early western front. Boy am I looking forward to that. Possibly my biggest highlight to come on the PC wargaming calendar.

Just as a further note, the election is on here in a weeks time, and the conservatives look likely to be toppling the sitting gov, with one of their election promises being "increased military spending"...connect the dots gents?

Well regardless I can only do map making and create estabs right now... until we get mounted ops in the engine I won't be going much further.. because IMO that is a must for this scale.

All that being said.. maybe something small where mounted ops aren't important... like say, WW1 would be possible at this scale? hmmm... let me mull that one over a bit.

Bil

Bil..thought about a WW1 mod myself..but trench system modelling which would be necessary made me think twice if it would be possible.

First of all, what phoenix said.

Also, I think you should give doing a WW1 game based on the system a lot of thought. Simulating trenches is not necessarily "necessary" since the early action on the western front plus eastern front action could be simulated without having trenches. The 100th anniversary of the start is less than a year away. I think it would be a good sell.

Be really interesting to see anything using the 'tactical' level you're working up, Bil, to be honest.

Bil, regarding transport and 'mounted';

Couldn't this be achieved differently? Supply trucks afterall are 'there' at least with a route, and you had planned to keep these 'invisible'. Couldn't transport be factored in with soft numbers, like increased road movement speed (for those with trucks) or increased movement/most terrains for said unit (if it also had halftrack transport)?

But how do you simulate them getting out of the halftrack and attacking on foot whilst the halftrack provides heavy weapons support from a different angle. The scale - at Bil's tactical level - is surely so small that the counters would have to separate out into two, no? And it's that smallness, that detail - almost at the same level of combat mission type games (almost, not quite), but with the superb Command Ops AI - that really makes Bil's project exciting, I think. I can see why you need to be able to dismount. IF Bil could find a theatre or time without mounting that would be great. And why not early WW1? And are trenches not simulable through landscape features in the present mapmaker (just asking - I don't know because I haven't tinkered with the MM yet)?

SapperAstro, yes as Phoenix describes the transport needs to be able to separate from the carried unit.. and not just at the tactical scale, at the operational scale this needs to happen as well. Currently you get units that cannot move through heavy woods, or other close terrain on foot because they have vehicles in their TO&E... where in reality they could dismount and then make their way across the terrain feature on foot.. this is even more important at the tactical scale.

Now as for WW1... I am thinking along the lines of something like Infantry in Battle or even Rommel's Infantry Attacks.. each of these books show many WW1 infantry based actions, at the correct scale and most do not feature trenches.

As for trenches, yes I think we can simulate trenches with the current system, at least a rudimentary version... I'll need to do some experimenting but I think it's doable.

Bil

Brilliant. Would love to try the tactical level. Look forward to your thoughts on it!

ORIGINAL: Bil H

As for trenches, yes I think we can simulate trenches with the current system, at least a rudimentary version... I'll need to do some experimenting but I think it's doable.

Bil

Have you thought about using Hockerlinie as trenches?Iit has a Direct Hit of just 1% and Area Hit of 9% and can be drawn in lines like a trench system.

What about the barbed wire?

daz and Perturbo, yes map layer elements is the way to simulate this stuff which really all boil down to either an impediment to movement, or a multiplier to combat, or, both. I have a few ideas on what would need to be done.. let me play with it this weekend.

Bil