COMMAND OPS : LEGENDS OF THE BLITZKRIEG - An Introduction

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Will motorized units (that don't need a dismount feature) be able to access woods? Otherwise tank units would be ... hmm.. let me call it "left out" here.

And what about the transports of a motorized inf unit? Does the enemy then get the possibilty to destroy the transports (say they're "parked" way off the combat area) or are these going to be abstracted (deducted temporarily) from the equipment pool?

Sorry I can't share any information on how this feature will work. [:D]


Vincenzo, North Africa would indeed be interesting at this scale (not so sure about the early Italian effort though [:'(] ).

[Rebel Yell]

Wonderful use of the engine.

Best of luck in the development process. I will be watching this with great interest.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

Sorry I can't share any information on how this feature will work. [:D]

Well, I think you are trying to avoid to answer the first question. [;)]

My question was, whether tanks and vital guns (eg. AT guns, Inf guns, etc.) will be able to access woods or not.

EDIT: Now, if it comes to my second question, the dismount feature, it's not that important to know the game mechanics behind that feature, as long as a proper dismount function is present in future installments. [:)]
Personally, I would prefer to render the trucks, halftracks and APCs as separated (temporarily independent) vehicle unit, especially since halftracks, APCs, or even jeeps/Bren carriers can put up quite some fire power with their LMGs, HMGs and built-in PAKs/Inf guns (in German halftracks, or Bren Carriers, for example), and could back up the foot soldiers, or be redirected to hot spots.
I could imagine that this would be a major project code-wise, though.

Still, it would be pretty neat to be able to dash through an enemy Bn's or Rgt.'s car pool, like Rommel did (actually he dashed through all the vehicles of the French 5th Motorized Inf Division, if I am not mistaken, which were neatly parked alongside the road during night bivouac [:D]), though.

[Bil H]

My question was, whether tanks and vital guns (eg. AT guns, Inf guns, etc.) will be able to access woods or not.

That is map dependent... the map designer can decide whether to allow access to woods for vehicles or not... in fact in the map editor, in addition to movement effects; fire effects and spotting effects can be specially adjusted to account for the effect you are looking for. What I would do is make woods (heavy woods) not accessible to vehicles other than on roads.. but I would then mix woods and scattered trees, which you could allow vehicles to enter. So creative use of the map editor can indeed supply the effect you are looking for.

Bil

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

That is map dependent... the map designer can decide whether to allow access to woods for vehicles or not... in fact in the map editor, in addition to movement effects; fire effects and spotting effects can be specially adjusted to account for the effect you are looking for. What I would do is make woods (heavy woods) not accessible to vehicles other than on roads.. but I would then mix woods and scattered trees, which you could allow vehicles to enter. So creative use of the map editor can indeed supply the effect you are looking for.

Yes I gathered that from my map design effort for HTTR (my Cologne map/scenario), so I experimented with the vehicle movement speed in woods, and set it to extremely low values (1-3). In HTTR the engine did not cater for the last "mile" to the point of attack, though, that means a tank unit would even attack through dense woods, resulting in an attack to be delayed by up to 10 hours or more, because the tanks had to make it through the rough terrain, first.

That makes me wonder, now, though: Currently, with the BFTB engine, tanks cannot enter dense woods (heavy woods), right? So, are you talking about placing wood and scattered tree layers next to each other, if you're suggesting to "mix" layers?

Whatsoever, from what I gathered, from various sources, including vet accounts, pictures and original footage, tanks could and can access woods, if the ground is not too muddy/sticky. There's a video of a T-34 being pulled out of a mud hole in Russa a few years ago, on youtube. The mud basically preserved the tank, its tracks and wheels were fully working, and I didn't spot any rust. Since it was in the middle of a wood, question is: how did it get there? [;)]

EDIT :
Ppl may wonder why I'm so persistent here, regarding accessibility of woods or rougher terrain ... I just think it's more realistic, plus it offers different approaches for the player. If your tanks can cut through 400 meters of dense wood, instead of approaching the enemy's AT guns in a village with a frontal attack on the main road, and if such a tank unit is then able to use the trees as cover/protection against AT shells/spotters, it will make a major difference.

[Bil H]

We are getting way off topic GoodGuy, [;)] but it would depend on the specific woods, the geographic location, map designer preferences, etc. Yes I was suggesting placing them next to each other on the map... then you could create vehicle friendly lanes through forests that could still have some protection normally associated with wooded terrain, or place broken terrain under your woods (which you had previously made passable to vehicles).. but this technique would not be as visible and apparent as using woods and scattered woods next to each other.

Bil

[GoodGuy]

Thanks for your answers. I didn't intend to hijack this thread, really. [:D]

If there's any petition out there to make dense woods accessible by a selected array of motorized units, I'll sign it without reading the fine prints, right away ! [:)][;)][&o]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

How representative an action is that? I'm no expert on France 1940 but the popular perception is that it was a walk-over for the Germans.

Pretty representative. The French army fought well. It was their generals that didn't fight all that well. If you read the memoirs of the German soldiers that fought in France 1940 they all tell about hard won victories.

It's funny because several of us seem to be working on platoon level games at the moment.

Best of luck with this project Bil. As always, if there is anything I can do to help let me know.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
It's funny because several of us seem to be working on platoon level games at the moment.

Best of luck with this project Bil. As always, if there is anything I can do to help let me know.

Thanks MR. What are you working on that is platoon level? Competition? [;)]

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

FD.. PT.. whoever you are [:'(]

If you were to create a tactical game in this engine.. what would be the subject?

I really wanted to get away from late war West Front... East Front was out of the question as that game is also in the works... and the early war stuff has a special place in my heart, Fall Gelb seemed the ideal subject.

Bil

How about a hypothetical Czech resistance? Poland, Hypothetical Swiss, Greece, North Africa, Syria, come to mind.

Some very sharp actions in Syria, and the last appearance of British horse cavalry, not to mention the native levies. The official British history is now on line to join the Australian version. And I have a 1939 TOE for a British cavalry regiment if you need it.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
It's funny because several of us seem to be working on platoon level games at the moment.

Best of luck with this project Bil. As always, if there is anything I can do to help let me know.

Thanks MR. What are you working on that is platoon level? Competition? [;)]

Not to France 1940. Besides your stuff is always much better than mine....[&o]

I'm just a lowly scenario designer. Not a coder.

Nothing to worry about there.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nikolaj]

First of all, this sounds great and although I'd like to see a bit more before committing to anything, I'll probably end up buying it when it's done.

Just to be clear, though, you're basically using the Command Ops engine, right? I'm wondering if changing the scale, like you're planning, won't require some work on the engine as well, and whether that's possible? I'm no programmer, though, so if you say no, I'll happily accept that answer. [:)]

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Nikolaj

Just to be clear, though, you're basically using the Command Ops engine, right? I'm wondering if changing the scale, like you're planning, won't require some work on the engine as well, and whether that's possible? I'm no programmer, though, so if you say no, I'll happily accept that answer. [:)]

Yep, using the Command Ops engine... some minor changes, map movement grid scale change, a lot of data research and implementation to account for the lower scale, but the core game is the same. I keep asking for new stuff... but Dave, for some reason, refuses to commit to anything. [;)]

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
I keep asking for new stuff... but Dave, for some reason, refuses to commit to anything. [;)]

It's my standard line and I'm sticking to it! [;)]

[Nikolaj]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Yep, using the Command Ops engine... some minor changes, map movement grid scale change, a lot of data research and implementation to account for the lower scale, but the core game is the same. I keep asking for new stuff... but Dave, for some reason, refuses to commit to anything. [;)]

Alright, thanks. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this game. I don't suppose you have any idea how long it'll take to finish?

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Nikolaj

Alright, thanks. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this game. I don't suppose you have any idea how long it'll take to finish?

There are only two of us doing the heavy lifting on this one, and there is a lot of work yet to do.. so I hope to see it released early next year. But no promises.

[Nikolaj]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
There are only two of us doing the heavy lifting on this one, and there is a lot of work yet to do.. so I hope to see it released early next year. But no promises.

Alright, thanks. I was just wondering where you were at, really. No pressure. [:)]

[Phoenix100]

Sounds superb. Can't wait, though it's a while to wait.....good luck with it. I'll certainly pay for it.

[Bil H]

In case anybody is interested there is a lively discussion going on at the War Historical forum: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum ... historical

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

Yep, using the Command Ops engine... some minor changes, map movement grid scale change, a lot of data research and implementation to account for the lower scale, but the core game is the same. I keep asking for new stuff... but Dave, for some reason, refuses to commit to anything. [;)]

I did a test scenario of 80s soviet airborne regiment vs Swedish 80s infantry bns on platoon scale and came to the conclusion that the system was not able to handle it. With that unit scale combat lasted in seconds due to that ammo and ordnance was expanded too quick and losses always where too dramatic. I tried to abstract the values to achieve better balance but it always turned out awkward.

Instead of the flow the Command Ops engine create, the battles where more like turn based when units came into engagement ranges of each other the outcomes where determined instantly, like from a die roll on a CRT.

Will estabs from the BFTB version be portable to your new project i.e will I be able to reuse my compiled data of orbats and weapons?