Matrix Games Forums

JeffK,
 
Golf33 drops into the forums occassionally but he's no longer actively involved with us. He's currently working for the Australian Defence Department.

I just started to play COTA a few weeks ago and have become addicted to it. (thanks Panther, I don't no why I waited so long) The UI is simple yet comprehensive, The AI is relatively challenging, and the scale of the game is perfect.

The command structure is one of the games strongest assets. This is the first game I've played where I can decide how much I want to micromanagement.
It's almost like two games in one.

IMHO, I disagree with those who compare the game to a "RTS"game. Although the game will "click and play" (if the player elects that option) it can also be played to simulate a "WEGO" turned based game by utilizing the "Run until.." option. The best part is that I, the player, can decide how I want to play the game.

I agree JeffK, the only drawback to the game is the lack of a comprehensive campaign. However, rather than having the one large campaign I would prefer to have a series of linked campaigns similar to the ones offered in CC COI, SP and JT EF/WF. Your success, (or failure) would determine the quality and quantity of your starting forces in the subsequent scenario. All points earned would be cumulative which would determine your"rank". etc. In COTA, for instance, the following scenarios could be linked even though the starting dates do overlap:

1. Veve: Clash at Veve
2. Amyntaion: Fast clean Break
3. Olympus, foothill of the gods

I realize that the work involved in incorporating this feature into BFTB / COTA would not be feasible at this time... but perhaps... maybe... over the next few years...Panther would consider looking into this.

Regards
D

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

4. HttR - My experiences with this game ran from awe at watching thr AI make some clever moves to boredom in realizing the game could also be "click and forget".

Well, that may be the very first impression of many players, no matter if they are more into real time simulations or more into turn-based ones.

I thought that too, well for a few hrs only, hehe. I then figured that it's not just like giving an order to a regiment or division - to attack a big town, for example - and then sit back.

In COTA and HttR the focus is on the operational plan, not on single companies or squads.

Both games are, in my books, the best approaches regarding operational planning/combat I've ever seen.

(Re)Posting a belated second to GoodGuy's commentary:

This may or may not convince you that COTA/HTTR is your cup of tea, but the following is to explain why I believe they are the finest simulations of command available on a PC.


Let's start with what a commander does in the real world, and the difference between planning and execution.

The commander has some kind of mission from higher: accomplish the following tasks, within a given timeframe, with given forces and assets.

The commander and staff proceed to analyze the mission, the expected enemy, the terrain, the available troops, and the available time to formulate a plan.

Traditional wargames support planning decently well - no better and no worse than HTTR/COTA. You can sit back and analyze courses of action, allocate forces to missions, and generally prioritize and synchronize. The change comes when we begin executing the mission.


During mission execution, the commander spends a lot of time sitting back and watching events unfold. From the perspective of a person watching the commander, it's possible not much is going on that's visible.

A great deal should be going on in that commander's head, though:

* Is the plan still capable of accomplishing the mission?
* Are friendly forces doing what the plan requires?
* Is the enemy doing what the plan predicts?

If the answer to any of these is "no", the the commander has a problem.

In addition, the commander should be continually looking for leading indicators that the answer to one of those questions is going to be "no" at some point in the future, and trying to figure out how to avert that "no" answer. This includes not only the current situation, and projected results from it, but also potential contingencies.

There's a comment of Napoleon's that runs something like: When I command a battle, I am continually asking myself: what would I do if the enemy appeared in a new location (flank, rear, etc). If I do not have an answer to this questions, I know I am in trouble and need to find an answer.

Thus, the commander has a continual process of visualizing the future state of the battlefield - knowing that if troops are going to be moved in response to changing developments, there will be delays on getting those troops into position, not only from time to move, but from the staff planning time necessary to get them moving as something other than a disorganized mob.


This is where HTTR/COTA shines: it puts the player squarely in the Visualize, Describe, Direct cycle a commander experiences: visualize the future state (and potential states) of the battlefield; Describe to subordinates the actions necessary to shape the future state into a positive outcome; and Direct the execution of those described missions.

The command delays *force* players to conduct future visualization: often, an enemy breakthrough happening now can't be countered for several hours. These delays make OODA loops a real and active participant in the battle; not just those in the simulation's delays, but in the commander's heads. A player who becomes reactive to events, instead of proactive in shaping them, is lost. (A few boardgames also do this through delays orders mechanisms, notably the Civil War and WW2 tactical games by The Gamers (MMP).)

The player is not encumbered with moving each and every unit: instead, the player issues missions: assigning objectives and resources to subordinates. Because Panther's AI commands units well (unlike that of multi-million dollar programs which will remain nameless), the player does not need to get involved in micromanagement.

Instead, having described the missions to subordinates, the player can sit back and direct operations: sitting back, watching events unfold, and continually trying to answer the questions:

* Is the plan still capable of accomplishing the mission?
* Are friendly forces doing what the plan requires?
* Is the enemy doing what the plan predicts?

If the answer to any of these is "no", the the player has a problem.

In addition, the player is continually looking for leading indicators that the answer to one of those questions is going to be "no" at some point in the future, and trying to figure out how to avert that "no" answer. This includes not only the current situation, and projected results from it, but also potential contingencies.


(Originally posted up here )

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

What I'm finding is that the hex games may be less realistic, particularly on a tactical level, but they are in some ways more relaxing.

That's a relative term. Check out Advanced Squad Leader boardgame (http://www.multimanpublishing.com/ASL/asl.php), a great WW2 hex based tactical wargame. It has plenty of detail...the rulebook is about 300 pages (about 50+ pages are necessary for some every day play ETO, the rest is for special situations/PTO/Desert etc). Also each historical campaign has its won addition of rules as well.

I got into ASL about 2.5 years ago and it completely satisfies my tactical wargaming needs. It has all I ever wanted from tactical hex based, turn based WW2 wargame. I play it single player (it has true solitaire module) as well with others through internet using VASL. It has 3000+ scenarios and those are just the official ones, there is probably 3 times as much from 3rd parties. ASL also has a large selections of campaigns (this is my focus, I enjoy playing campaigns very much, I don't care much for scenarios) at least 10 official ones.The official list of HASL modules includes 2 excellent quality Stalingrad campaigns. Each campaign can take few months to get done, each module has more than one campaign, so I'm Eastern Front tactical heaven! Since I got into ASL, I stopped playing pretty much all my tactical ww2 wargames (PC/boardgames), the only other WW2 tactical wargames that I play are Close Combat series...

I have bought COTA and I am watching the progress of Bulge 44 with a great interest.
I like the scale of the game, the level of details, the number of parameters taken in account but I would have prefer to have exactly the same game on a WEGO system in order to have the possibility to play against a human. At the end it's give a play which is much more interesting.

I ask the question to Mr Arjuna: is it consider as an option to have in the future this simulation in a WEGO system or is it not part of your plan ?
I think it could catch a more larger number of people which are already playing to Panzer Campaigns, WIP, UV...

Micke II,
 
I assume by Bulge 44 you are referring to our Battles from the Bulge  ( BFTB ) game and I assume you are after a PBEM option.
 
It's not part of our plans to provide a WEGO system for our engine as it would require rewriting so much of the basic code. It's like asking a traditional turn based game if they could run in continuous time. PBEM is also not on our radar for similar reasons.
 
I appreciate the difficulties of coordinating playing times with outher human opponents using our system where both players have to be online at the same time. We all live such busy lives these days. However, I can assure you that it is worth the effort. To facilitate this we will provide an Opponents Wanted thread on this forum once the game is released.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Micke II,

I assume by Bulge 44 you are referring to our Battles from the Bulge  ( BFTB ) game and I assume you are after a PBEM option.

It's not part of our plans to provide a WEGO system for our engine as it would require rewriting so much of the basic code. It's like asking a traditional turn based game if they could run in continuous time. PBEM is also not on our radar for similar reasons.

I appreciate the difficulties of coordinating playing times with outher human opponents using our system where both players have to be online at the same time. We all live such busy lives these days. However, I can assure you that it is worth the effort. To facilitate this we will provide an Opponents Wanted thread on this forum once the game is released.

I do'nt know if editors are undertaking market studies before to launch a new game. But in term of market need I am sure there is a big gap in the simulations concerning a good game at a tactical level (company, bataillon) using a WEGO system with a PBEM option. There is not such game at the moment on the market. "Combined arms" could have filled nicely this window but this game is apparently not for tomorrow or even next year. Panzer campaigns (alternate turns) is using a old system which becomes year after year more obsolete.
I am sure that Panther Games is the best placed to cover this type of simulations but it's for sure an another game and a another type of development. Perhaps for the next decade !

Micke II,
 
Point taken. Please keep in mind that developing a game like ours requires a huge investment ( 40+ man years and counting ) and nowdays the likely return is not that great. Few are willing to undertake such an investment when there are better returns elsewhere. Even if we were to do a tactical game I would definetely be using a continuous time system and not a WEGO system. The reasons we went down this approach back in 1996 are still relevant today, namely that it provides a better, more realistic simulation. But I've argued this case many time before and I won't go into it again here. I do reckon there is room for both systems in our market. They serve different valid requirements. All the best,

I've played ASL a few times, most recently at work with a friend of mine in Christmas, 2004 or so.

I liked it, but I'm too old to keep track of all those rules. . .

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

What I'm finding is that the hex games may be less realistic, particularly on a tactical level, but they are in some ways more relaxing.

That's a relative term. Check out Advanced Squad Leader boardgame (http://www.multimanpublishing.com/ASL/asl.php), a great WW2 hex based tactical wargame. It has plenty of detail...the rulebook is about 300 pages (about 50+ pages are necessary for some every day play ETO, the rest is for special situations/PTO/Desert etc). Also each historical campaign has its won addition of rules as well.

I got into ASL about 2.5 years ago and it completely satisfies my tactical wargaming needs. It has all I ever wanted from tactical hex based, turn based WW2 wargame. I play it single player (it has true solitaire module) as well with others through internet using VASL. It has 3000+ scenarios and those are just the official ones, there is probably 3 times as much from 3rd parties. ASL also has a large selections of campaigns (this is my focus, I enjoy playing campaigns very much, I don't care much for scenarios) at least 10 official ones.The official list of HASL modules includes 2 excellent quality Stalingrad campaigns. Each campaign can take few months to get done, each module has more than one campaign, so I'm Eastern Front tactical heaven! Since I got into ASL, I stopped playing pretty much all my tactical ww2 wargames (PC/boardgames), the only other WW2 tactical wargames that I play are Close Combat series...

Since this thread is still going, the only point I was making is that someone needs to bring these hex games into the 21st century. WEGO is a given, but lets just work on an interface overhaul and the ability to tweak the time a turn takes to resolve (without F8 Kursk turns take 45 minutes or so).

I was one of the first to buy Flashpoint Germany, and while I liked the game system, I found the square "hexes" a bit confusing, and the maps too small, limiting tactical choices. A fantastic interface and a built-in pbem system IIRC.

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I've played ASL a few times, most recently at work with a friend of mine in Christmas, 2004 or so.

I liked it, but I'm too old to keep track of all those rules. . .

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

What I'm finding is that the hex games may be less realistic, particularly on a tactical level, but they are in some ways more relaxing.

That's a relative term. Check out Advanced Squad Leader boardgame (http://www.multimanpublishing.com/ASL/asl.php), a great WW2 hex based tactical wargame. It has plenty of detail...the rulebook is about 300 pages (about 50+ pages are necessary for some every day play ETO, the rest is for special situations/PTO/Desert etc). Also each historical campaign has its won addition of rules as well.

I got into ASL about 2.5 years ago and it completely satisfies my tactical wargaming needs. It has all I ever wanted from tactical hex based, turn based WW2 wargame. I play it single player (it has true solitaire module) as well with others through internet using VASL. It has 3000+ scenarios and those are just the official ones, there is probably 3 times as much from 3rd parties. ASL also has a large selections of campaigns (this is my focus, I enjoy playing campaigns very much, I don't care much for scenarios) at least 10 official ones.The official list of HASL modules includes 2 excellent quality Stalingrad campaigns. Each campaign can take few months to get done, each module has more than one campaign, so I'm Eastern Front tactical heaven! Since I got into ASL, I stopped playing pretty much all my tactical ww2 wargames (PC/boardgames), the only other WW2 tactical wargames that I play are Close Combat series...

An alternative would be the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kits. Focuses on the core gameplay without going on the details of exceptions for specific battles and so on. There's 3 starter kits with a good number of scenarios to go around them, and there's an upcoming scenario pack, as well a historical module (based on Elst during Market-Garden).

CrimGuy,

LOL... When I see a combat game which is offering "squares" on its playing field, I laugh and walk away.

And to be honest with you, compared to this series (COTA, BFTB), everything is a mere game. And I am a life long WWII tactical, operational, and strategic gamer.

COTA was the only game my dad EVER sat down and "played" with me. Which is saying something. One day I was playing on my computer, and my dad who was visiting, came in and saw what was going on and started spewing orders and suggestions. This was interesting to me. Because my dad was a general's aide in Cold War Europe, the youngest peace time captain ever until 1965, and in charge of an armored company. It was the ONLY time a game I had out/was playing/whatever, even managed to interest him because of its "realism." Everything else is just a game.

Of course, even this series is a model of an infinitely complex event. However, the more people that buy this series, and convince their friends to give it a go, the closer we will get. And I hope in the next 10 years, it will become everything I dream it will (and can) be.

Chris

I can't face turn based operational games any more, even strategic games, they have to be WEGO or real time. I just think we're, what, 35 years past hex-based gaming, and we have computers, yet we're still stuck with the same central game we had back when wargaming started, albeit, with tweaks.

Panther's COTA etc (and I'll add Combat Mission and a couple of others) are the only games which really seem to be prepared to embrace the power PCs give us, and the realism a good simulation can build. Love it, keep it up!

Tiny Pirate,

You Da man!

I respectfully disagree with the generally poor report card you guys give turn based games. They have their place and always will. This thread (which I began a year ago) wasn't meant to start this debate. It was more of a question about the terrific UI Panther has developed, and its' possible use in other types of war games.

I started my post Apple, PC wargaming, with Close Combat, Command and Conquer, SMG, Starcraft, etc.
 
One day you wake up and realise you are too old for real time.
 
Wego at least gives you a timeframe to contemplate. But the AI has to be good enough to take over after you give your orders.

A year later and I searched for a thread about pausable real time and there I am, lol.

I think what turns me off to real time these days is the lack of a replay. In wego games (CM and PCK) you can rewind and replay the action from different angles/viewpoints. I've tried AATF, Armored Brigade and the old demo for RDOA and things just happen too fast for me to grasp and act/react.

Looking forward to a demo for BFTB to see if I still feel that way.

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I think what turns me off to real time these days is the lack of a replay.

This doesn't have to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that all four of the games based on Sid Meier's Gettysburg had a replay function. They also had a good statistical breakdown of kills/losses by unit. All in all, they were very well done.

Not sure how CotA could go to fast. On its normal setting you have all the time in the world to contemplate.

Particularly because it's pausable. Just stop the action whenever you feel you need more time to evaluate the situation.