BFTB (Mini-Guide): Tutorial, AAR, and tips! (more or less)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

3D graphics in determining LOS...

"In real life," with all a human's perceptual sophistication, reading terrain is an art. Being able to discern the "military-crest" of a hill is far easier said than done. And, frequently, you don't know where it is until you're standing on it. For simulations sake, should PG require players to post a unit to a location to generate the same information, regardless of the mode in which the terrain is displayed?

Another poster mentioned Combat Mission. Same deal in that game. When it comes to LOS, the game's 3D environment doesn't offer a thread's worth of advantage over a 2D-map. To use the LOS tool, players have to post a unit to the location in question. On anything else other than a REALLY flat map, assuming that you've got an LOS, or that your opponent DOESN'T have one, is a recipe for disaster.

Conversely, there are many, many hex-based games out that render determining LOS little more than child's play. I'd cite a popular game function that allows a player to select a unit, hit a key, and voila, every hex on the map that's visible gets highlighted somehow. Even a low-tech game like ASL allows players who know the rules and can count to discern the relationship between hexes, in terms of LOS, and to do so in a fashion that's bulletproof. Hex A either has an LOS to hex B, or it doesn't.

In summary, I see no advantage in using 3D terrain graphics (over 2D) when it comes to helping players interpret the "lay of the land" in a wargame.

[wodin]

Here is a game that I had forgotton about even though I own it....well I bought it when you had to pay now its free (no AI means no play also a horror of an interface)....it uses a 3d map and counters and I imagine would be how a 3d panther rgame would look like.

BATLLECOMMANDLINK

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Here is a game that I had forgotton about even though I own it....well I bought it when you had to pay now its free (no AI means no play also a horror of an interface)....it uses a 3d map and counters and I imagine would be how a 3d panther rgame would look like.

BATLLECOMMANDLINK

Very cool, but do you think that anyone from outside this little world of ours would be satisfied with the counters? And if PG did 3D vehicles/troops/guns, what would be a suitable ratio of men and equipment to models?

PG doesn't do tactical games, they do operational games. At the risk of stating the obvious, in real life, command of a battle at that level was done from a headquarters. That was the only way to coordinate the units and tasks. Rommel may have taken local control of a situation, but he could only do so over what he could see. His Storch may have provided a "satellite-view" of sorts, but he couldn't run a battle from up there, because he would have needed his 2D maps, radios and staff to manage things for him.

BTW, I actually fiddle with things when I'm playing the same way that GG does. I don't pause the game to adjust units, but I only take command at critical points in the battle. In effect, I become Rommel, having jumped out of my staff car or landed in the Storch, and taken control. Most everything else is left to run wide open on its own. Perhaps PG should include a "Rommel-unit" that represents the player on the map, one that will allow a player to take control of an AT gun, IF the player is close enough!

[wodin]

Well the counters look like wargame counters but are 3D.

I wouldn't change anything about the Panther game mechanics but this games graphic approach could work.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I wouldn't change anything about the Panther game mechanics...

I'd do oodles of stuff:

-Expand engineer functions
-Decrease the grid size (now that computers can handle the math)
-Add off-map/off-shore artillery
-Allow for additional altitude layers
-Add terrain types like minefields
-Improve support for longer operations
-Expand/improve the post game AAR
-Expand air operations, Stukas, Typhoons, etc.,.

That's just for starters. The problem with the items that I cite above is that they'd require a significant expenditure of funds for programming. And there's the bind. Do players want the money spent on programming or on 3D art (both of which expensive)?

That's a real question. [:)]

Thoughts, a poll perhaps?

[wodin]

More features than 3D for me.

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

As much as I would like to have 3D..... I have to agree with wodin & PoE. More features first, last and always!! [&o]

Umm, I don't suppose there's a realistic chance of having one's cake and eating it too?? [:'(]

Rob.

[James Sterrett]

Features over 3D for me. [:)]

[Llyranor]

Features, always features.

(psst, co-op)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Features, always features.

(psst, co-op)

Llyranor, if you don't object, I'll add that to the items that I cited above.

[SgtChaudart]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Features, always features.

(psst, co-op)

Yeeess!!
It would be fantastic!!

[PirateJock]

Features with uncomplicated interface (map & controls) every time. The pretty games are what my PS3 is for.

(psst .. campaign)

[Arjuna]

Goodguy,

I must have missed this post of yours. It's very good. Much appreciated.

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
There are 3 more useful functions or features that would be a good addition to CmdOps:

1) "Target lock".
While many nations employ a method of what I'd call "relative indepency" (means small bodies are allowed to act independently regarding target selection or type of approach - to some degree), officers (CO or NCO) may still force their sections to target a particular enemy unit. With the current engine, there are situations like where a given Inf unit may fire at a laaaarge enemy Arty Rgt nearby, although an assaulting enemy unit may pass on the left side just to charge right into a reorg'ing friendly Bn in the rear, for instance. If i am correct, the threat level would suggest that the friendly inf unit should focus on the (bigger) Arty Rgt, as it may fire at the friendly unit, even though the assaulting enemy unit appears to be the bigger threat: maybe even for the entire sector.
Having the possibility to target and lock individual enemy units would improve the game experience for sure.
Adding a function to have the friendly unit chase a "locked" unit, would be even better.

This is already on the wish list. I must admit though that I am ambivalent about allowing the targeting of specific enemy units. On the one hand this occurs rarely in real life and I'm a bit worried that it will introduce an unrealistic capability, especially in a dense or cluttered battlefield, where it is often hard to pinpoint or distinguish between what is one unit or another. On the other I can see uses for it, in particular for counter-battery fire and for chasing the lone enemy unit.

2) The LOS area function I suggested above could be coupled with the view system from other games, in particular the method to grey out enemy units, to indicate that the selected friendly unit has no clear LOF to that enemy.

While most of the infos (intel - i.e. estimated enemy strength, enemy status - i.e. assaulting, reorg'ing / dug in etc.) in the CmdOps engine are brilliantly put together so that they can be accessed quickly and easily, the presentation of LOS/LOF appears to be somewhat cumbersome, maybe even ancient. IMHO, the threat level indicator could be removed, and replaced with something that I'd call "Direct LOF"-Indicator:
When selecting a given friendly unit all nearby enemy units residing in its LOF should be marked (with a green outline, for example)

I agree it would be a good addition.

3) An improved artillery system.
Currently, artillery pieces like infantry guns have either limited or no indirect fire-capabilities. If I am not mistaken, even German 75mm IGs had a range of up to 2.8 kilometers, enabling them to serve in a short-range arty role. This indirect fire range doesn't seem to be rendered by the engine and the "bombard"-button will be greyed out. On a sidenote, they had AT capabilities, using HEAT rounds.
In turn, currently, German 88mm-Flak units have limited direct fire (AT) capabilities due to the low range, even though official reports confirmed (tank) kills at 1800 meters in Africa, some veteran accounts even claim 2200 meters. Their optical gun sights actually allowed for long-range engagements.

You might be pleased to know, that based in part on some of your earlier feedback, we have reviewed the way we treat German Inf Gun units for BFTB and these now have an indirect fire capability. 88s too now have an AArm range out to 3000m, albeit their accuracy drops off from over 60% at 1500m to just 33% at 3000m.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjun88s too now have an AArm range out to 3000m, albeit their accuracy drops off from over 60% at 1500m to just 33% at 3000m.

That's good, but they sure are gonna go through ammo fast!

[Greup]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Do players want the money spent on programming or on 3D art (both of which expensive)?

That's a real question. [:)]

Features over 3D but I'd be happy to see elevation lines on the maps, if possible.

[MarkShot]

Okay, sports fans, I just loaded my retail copy of BFTB and exploring like the rest of you.

First, I just wanted to see how it runs on my PC and how fast it will run. I used a little trick which I checked for in the docs and did not see. As you will note, BFTB has four different speeds of execution: PAUSED, >, >>, >>>. Now, you would think that >>> is the fastest you can get, but actually you can do a little bit better.

When you click on >>> do that while holding down the SHIFT key. Basically, that will drop some graphic frames from being displayed and further accelerate the clock. Of course, if you are running BFTB on an overclocked 80486, I don't think that will help. Also, note that the graphics (movement of units) will appear a little jerky.

---

Remember if you have a multi-core system, do let BFTB run on two of those cores. I have it from the Top Tech, Paul Scobell, that BFTB will take advantage of two cores if present. The game was designed from the get go to be multi-threaded.

---

I skimmed the PDFs. It seems there is no single page keyboard reference. I put something together for my own use about a year. I just checked it, and it looks pretty accurate still. I will see if I can attach it to this message or get Erik to put it in the members area.

---

Lastly, I do apologize for not doing the AAR and other tips stuff that was promised in the thread title. Sometimes, life just happens and you got to deal with it.

---

PS: I just checked and I cannot upload a PDF. So, I have converted it to a JPG. You can grab it and print it as such. Not as sharp as a PDF, but should be good enough.

[Shadrach]

Nice to hear about the multi-threading, I have a quad so should run smooth - do you know if it also will use more than 2 if available?

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: stian

Nice to hear about the multi-threading, I have a quad so should run smooth - do you know if it also will use more than 2 if available?

They said earlier tht it would support multiple processors, so I presume that it is not more difficult to support 4 than 2 (I have both a 4 and a 2, and it runs smooth as silk on both 3GHz computers).

Henri

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: henri51

ORIGINAL: stian

Nice to hear about the multi-threading, I have a quad so should run smooth - do you know if it also will use more than 2 if available?

They said earlier tht it would support multiple processors, so I presume that it is not more difficult to support 4 than 2 (I have both a 4 and a 2, and it runs smooth as silk on both 3GHz computers).

Henri

The game runs two main threads, the UI and the AI. Plus some networking threads, but they don't add much over head. So we make pretty good use of two cores, to get more performance out of 4, 6, 8 etc core machines we need to do some rework. Our current thought is to break up the AI thread some how, a lot of work, but if we did it would mean we could support really BIG battles. Like the whole of the Bulge in one Scenario, but don't expect to see it this year, lets put it that way [:)]

[James Sterrett]

Question from the clueless:
 
How do I allocate processors to programs?