Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.

In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.

The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.

Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.

Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.

Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.

So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on. Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

Are there enough land unit slots?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I would also look at creating seperate divisional/brigade HQ's to help with command aspects.

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns...

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns...

+1

My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: berto
My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

Oh, bucko! Bait your breath! This one is gonna be an absolute nad churning, wicked witch 'o the West, scenario; the best we can do. This scenario is not your little sister's AE.

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: berto
My cup of tea. Hot-seat solitaire works for me, too. I wait for this with bated breath.

Oh, bucko! Bait your breath! This one is gonna be an absolute nad churning, wicked witch 'o the West, scenario; the best we can do. This scenario is not your little sister's AE.

I'd love to test this.

I'd die too for a later scenario, at this level of detail, covering Philippines 1944-45.

Heck, I'd give my right arm for a 1942-1944 Papua-New Guinea/Rabaul scenario.