Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bil H

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

Bil,

Here's something to consider chewing this weekend .

This gets into the counter mobility additions to the existing engine.

World War I can't be mimicked in detail unless there is an increase in the type of emplacements that channel (or slow) attacks with the use of mines and barbed wire in particular.

Once the 1914-5 maneuvers stalled, the entrenchments first mirrored the effects of the "entrenched" deployments in the current game engine (nominally the kind of defensive systems that could be built during 2-days in a static defensive formation) and later transitioned to "fortified" (which the game supports only as a terrain feature rather than as a real time improvement to the entrenched deployment).

Based on recollection of the histories I've read, most post-1915 WWI battlefields on the Western and Italian fronts can be mimicked with opposing lines of "fortified" terrain, creating heavy defensive positions, and thus the terrain in which an attacking force can relatively quickly resume the defensive once it gets to the enemy's "fortified" position.

But, the effects of movement to traverse a "no man's land" riddled with mines and barbed wire may be difficult to model for real time effects.

Pace for traversing flat "No Man's Land" would be slowed to roughly the same as walking across broken terrain but would largely lack direct fire cover defensive benefits provided by broken terrain rubble. Adding a delay to that pace with counter maneuver emplacements in "broken terrain" (in existing "broken terrain" cover types, or a flat terrain riddled with artillery blast craters), may have to wait for a counter maneuver layer in the mapping engine.

Though there's an implied "combat engineer" doctrine existing for bridging and to some extent entrenchment, a more specific doctrine for combat engineer capabilities would have to be defined to allow for removal of counter maneuver emplacements, or given a game duration which allows it, creation of those emplacements or improving "entrenched" to "fortified" during the scenario.

ORIGINAL: Bil H

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

Creating passages in barbed wire was a very important tactical problem during WWI.

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Pace for traversing flat "No Man's Land" would be slowed to roughly the same as walking across broken terrain but would largely lack direct fire cover defensive benefits provided by broken terrain rubble. Adding a delay to that pace with counter maneuver emplacements in "broken terrain" (in existing "broken terrain" cover types, or a flat terrain riddled with artillery blast craters), may have to wait for a counter maneuver layer in the mapping engine.

Weren't craters in "No Man's Land" often used for cover?

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

. . .

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Pace for traversing flat "No Man's Land" would be slowed to roughly the same as walking across broken terrain but would largely lack direct fire cover defensive benefits provided by broken terrain rubble. Adding a delay to that pace with counter maneuver emplacements in "broken terrain" (in existing "broken terrain" cover types, or a flat terrain riddled with artillery blast craters), may have to wait for a counter maneuver layer in the mapping engine.

Weren't craters in "No Man's Land" often used for cover?

Yes.

That's why I said "largely."

If the trooper is eventually going to "traverse" flat terrain, he has to get out of the shell hole and be subject to direct fire.

"Flat" assumed there was no vertical rubble (rocks and stumps) that would interrupt fields of fire while still allowing a trooper to crawl forward behind them. Picture a well maintained farmer's field where the forces are facing each other across a bombarded "No Man's Land" zone following an advance by one side or another.

If you were going to model WW1..you'd also have to restrict speed of movement for certain battles (to fit in historically)..following the tactic of walking in lines. Plus Mass formation in the Early War. Which ever period of the War you choose some major work would be needed on the game so it doesn't play like WW2 with WW1 weapons. Another issue would be Rolling barrages and timed barrages..no WW1 game can not have these..also again depending on the period of the war would depend on how well these performed.Plus be able to use MG's as indirect weapons which the Germans used to great effect at the Somme.

WOW..two years ago this thread came out and we where hoping for the game release in 2013!!:)

Anyway any news on the CO2 game...has any work been done over the last two years or is it all on hold due to the patches?


Really was looking forward to this particular game and scale.

I can attest to these things taking an extreme amount of time compared to what is planned. I am working on my own project that even was mostly complete a few years ago, and still the "occasional hiccup" has delayed it. As well, most people doing this do not (thankfully) depend upon it for their primary livelihood, so often real life gets in the way as well.

All things considered I usually do as people above mentioned, and add in 3-4 years to the official "planned" dates lol.

Yeah, I just noticed also they said it would be done or hoped to be done within a year and now it's been 2 years. Where is this thing I WANT IT like a margarette Holahan wants a bathtub in MASH. [:D]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

I can attest to these things taking an extreme amount of time compared to what is planned. I am working on my own project that even was mostly complete a few years ago, and still the "occasional hiccup" has delayed it. As well, most people doing this do not (thankfully) depend upon it for their primary livelihood, so often real life gets in the way as well.

All things considered I usually do as people above mentioned, and add in 3-4 years to the official "planned" dates lol.

Having a some background in project management, I can assure you that particularly with software intensive products, the bigger the project, the less predictable the schedule.

First lag in initiating CO2 is the CO public beta release and vetting.

The time programmers spend refining the patches is time taken from them focusing on new programming for CO2.

I thought Bil said it was on hold until he sees what the new engine will be like?

Gerry

ORIGINAL: Gerry

I thought Bil said it was on hold until he sees what the new engine will be like?

Gerry

Could be for Legends of the Blitzkreig.

The issue is the same. When all your programming resources are used to patch CO, the CO2 project start lags.

While CO continues to be patched, CO2 lags.