The future of Command Ops

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

Bletchley_Geek:
Replacing the leader rated with an 'A' with a leader rated with a 'B' when the former gets killed doesn't follow so clearly to me. There should be a chance that, for instance, your leader 'C' when killed, gets replaced by a leader 'A' (i.e. the slackers are being culled). Same thing for rank and file, actually - the ones that survive may be better (as in fitter, more skilled, wiser or just more lucky) than the ones that don't.

^^^^^^^^
This man gets it. The cream rises to the top is not just a trite cliche'. It is true and especially so for US military units in times of war.

War tends to bring out the best - and the worst - in men. Both should be operable and have visible impact in any simulation so the player can react/proact accordingly.

I am not sure if I fully get it, but this has been one my pet peeves for ages. I mean, I can understand that simplifying assumption in a boardgame, where the number of counters is limited and values are printed on those counters. But on a computer there's an endless supply of counters and you can pretty much change those values as needed.

Regarding the applicability of this: I reckon it does not only apply to the US, but pretty much to any military. Note as well, that such a "bonus" doesn't come for free. Units get less efficient in some aspects (for instance in dealing with logistics or field engineering, which are two very important activities).

Indeed, receiving replacements tends to bring units back to a 'baseline' but given the timelines we cover in scenarios, such replacements would mostly consist of personnel who has found its way back after getting separated from his unit, or those suffering a light wound, and back into his unit after 24 hours or less.

ORIGINAL: wodin
If the second in command is known historically then use him. Leaders already have a good selection of stats. I still think Leaders should play a big part in how well units perform in CO. No idea if their effect is negligible or not.

They do play quite a role, out of the top of my mind, some of the most salient things they affect are:

[*] The soundness of the plans the AI comes up with. The AI generates several 'candidate' plans, and these are ranked according to several factors, like security (probability of suffering high casualty rates) or speed (how long does it take to achieve the objective). The selection of the final plan amongst these candidates is affected in a logical manner by traits such as judgement and aggressivenes. That's one of the reasons why we need so badly saved games to check - these effects are randomized to some extent.

[*] How effective units are firing (avoiding target overkill and conserving ammo), deciding to fire at the best time/range, choosing the best target, etc.

[*] How fast do they recover from retreats and routs

[*] How likely are they to stand their ground when subjected to pressure, etc. (that's the Morale Failure event I discussed in some thread in the Tech Support forum some time ago)

[*] How resilient they're to attrition due to surrender or dispersion

[*] How likely they're to request artillery support, and how long is going to take to have that support (i.e. registration time)

ORIGINAL: wodin
As for medals citations just do it like Flashpoint Campaigns. The game doesn't need to name names or anything like that..just award the odd medal here and there for exceptional unit performance. Leave it to the players imagination what the soldiers names where and what they where like etc etc.

That's a great idea - I hope Capn Darwin, cbelva and the rest of the On-Target Sims crew don't mind we get some inspiration there [:)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X
This is probably a strange request and I don't mean to hijeck daz's thread (yes I do), however I would like to see X-Fire support for the game so I can track total hours played. Maybe it's just me, but I like seeing that kind of thing.

I've been doing some research on that, Tim, and I see that they have an SDK which was last updated in 2006 or so. That's a bad sign.

It's a shame that Steam doesn't allow you to add non-Steam games to your library (as for instance Spotify or iTunes do with songs). But of course, we could also get on Steam and generate keys for you (devs can generate as many keys as they want, at no cost).

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Daz..I'd like detailed combat logs for my units as mentioned in my post above..you agree? Also as I said leader casualties. If in a campaign game they may just be wounded and come back later on.

You got my medal and citation idea abit wrong..not saying you get a medal..but medals and citations are awarded to your units. This would give some attachment to your counters and add a personal touch. Lets say one coy had a VC or MoH if American, you can look at the units combat log and see what they where doing and then imagine one of your pixeltruppen being a hero during the action. At the end of the campaogn you cna then see an OOB that has all the units you'd had during the campaign with it's medal and citation haul and casualties and kills. If the unit was destroyed give the date, time and place of the battle they came a cropper. Again adding narrative, attachment and immersion.

I like all your ideas Jason, but that would come later in a, what if/fictional Campaign, that would be targeted more at the game player than the historian, and would take a considerable effort to implement correctly I imagine.

What I am proposing is a quick fix, where no work will be needed on the current scenarios at all.
What will change is the way they are presented to the new player, to go some way to addressing the game player requirements I pointed out in my first post.

It doesn't drag you into the game like it should, and give you a reason to progress, and lacks reward for doing well. This is taken from a gamers point of view.

But I hope will also cover the second point:

There is a real missed opportunity here to present the product as an educational tool, and I hope to explain more on this later with images, and ideas. This is taken from a Historians point of view.

I'm hoping it will tie all the current BFTB scenarios into a historical narrative of the actual events, as they unfolded in date order, in an interactive map, with overlayed planning graphics, that show the ebb and flow of the historical battles.
This will be advanced with a movable timeline on the bottom bar of the screen.
As the time is advanced the area that the scenarios cover will be overlayed on the tactical map as and when the date for them becomes available, and will disappear when the date expires.
For the campaign though you will only be able to select the day 1 scenarios to start with.

More will become available once you achieve a draw or better.
This is the part that will drag the new player in as it should, and give them a reason to progress.

More will become clear once I get the next image up I hope.

[wodin]

Why would it have to be fiction\what if..yes leader deaths I suppose. Streets of Stalingrad boardgame has leader wounds death..rare but happens. GGWITE has leader deaths etc aswell so it cna sill make the game grog like and feel historical.

Flashpoint Campaigns does the medal thing and it doesn't seem to complicated. Not talking anything that has to analyse every aspect of the battle just ge tit in.

Not sure making the game more educational or aimed at the historian is really going to bring in new players and improve sales, not saying it wouldn't be great but I imagine it will only really appeal to current players

I suppose I'm talking about the big changes Bletchly is talking about. Where your looking at improving the game for the current owners. You see people who don't own the game wont really know about the lack of reward and progression so thats not really a reason they haven't bought it.

@Bletchly..seems the leaders do have a big impact then. Well leader wounds and death could add alot of tension and ups and downs. Add medals and unit combat AAR\logs I think would enhance the game and appeal to new players.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: wodin
unit combat AAR\logs I think would enhance the game and appeal to new players.

Well, one of the biggest jobs we did in the last three months was to get exhaustive logs of key areas in the engine - like fires resolution. Nonetheless, I think we don't need to present to the player with spreadsheets a la Tigers Unleashed. I think that's a bit like putting the cart before the ox, rather than the other way around.

Back to the logs: I think it's not going to be too hard to make with them something more interesting than just a debugging and benchmarking tool. There's the thing of the replays as well - that's tied to the WEGO PBEM capabilities I mentioned above.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I'm hoping it will tie all the current BFTB scenarios into a historical narrative of the actual events, as they unfolded in date order, in an interactive map, with overlayed planning graphics, that show the ebb and flow of the historical battles.
This will be advanced with a movable timeline on the bottom bar of the screen.
As the time is advanced the area that the scenarios cover will be overlayed on the tactical map as and when the date for them becomes available, and will disappear when the date expires.
For the campaign though you will only be able to select the day 1 scenarios to start with.

More will become available once you achieve a draw or better.
This is the part that will drag the new player in as it should, and give them a reason to progress.

More will become clear once I get the next image up I hope.

I like that concept Daz, of this kind of VCR like view on history where you "dip" into it at the point you find more appealing or interesting. The problem is that the logical feature requests would be counterfactuals. Say you win big time in Battle of the Roadblocks and end up occupying Bastogne. Or Skorzeny takes Malmedy. What happens with the scenarios supposed to be happening down the road?

[MikeJ19]

Good morning all,

I'm new to this game - I've been playing for about 5 weeks. I really enjoy the challenge of having to think while playing a game. I agree with a lot of what has been mentioned above. I've got a couple of ideas to add to the fray:

1. At the end of the game, I would love to be able to watch the battle that was just fought - to see where the enemy went and to look at the various key decision points. I think this would really help me improve.

2. I think that there could easily be Intelligence messages during the game - something that a Higher HQs has just found out and sends down to you - this could be an additional message timed to come in during the game.

The google map view above would be wonderful - and it would likely attract more players.

As I have said before, the community supporting this game is incredible and I'm very impressed with the responsiveness and the energy. Well done!

Now back to stopping the Germans in Elsenborn Ridge!!!

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I'm hoping it will tie all the current BFTB scenarios into a historical narrative of the actual events, as they unfolded in date order, in an interactive map, with overlayed planning graphics, that show the ebb and flow of the historical battles.
This will be advanced with a movable timeline on the bottom bar of the screen.
As the time is advanced the area that the scenarios cover will be overlayed on the tactical map as and when the date for them becomes available, and will disappear when the date expires.
For the campaign though you will only be able to select the day 1 scenarios to start with.

More will become available once you achieve a draw or better.
This is the part that will drag the new player in as it should, and give them a reason to progress.

More will become clear once I get the next image up I hope.

I like that concept Daz, of this kind of VCR like view on history where you "dip" into it at the point you find more appealing or interesting. The problem is that the logical feature requests would be counterfactuals. Say you win big time in Battle of the Roadblocks and end up occupying Bastogne. Or Skorzeny takes Malmedy. What happens with the scenarios supposed to be happening down the road?

The outcome of a win would have no effect on the rest of the scenarios at all other than to unlock the next snapshot in history, so see if you could have done better at that point than the historical commanders were able, with the resources they had to hand.
If you carry forward anything from the previous scenario then you are going down the route of a what if/fictional campaign, which would also be great to have this option, but can you imagine all the programing work you will need to do to pull this off?
Not only that but after each win the whole campaign will get easier and easier.

My idea is to present the Historical scenarios in a way that makes more sense than an alphabetical list, and to give an incentive to move onto the next one, with an unlocking of the next logical one in date, and geographical order, and medal depending on how they did.
If other players are anything like me they will want to fill the map with Medal of Honours, or Iron Cross with oak leaves.
It will also track all your previous AAR results, that you will be able to see when mouseing over the medal graphic.

As you play through the campaign it should start to become apparent, why the offensive started to grind to a halt, as recourses and manpower started to run out for Axis, and how the Allies flow of reinforcements, starts to turn the tide.
Then the switch to the offensive for the Allies as they start to push out the bulge.
All this will be visible from the tactical campaign map, with the historical planning graphics as the timeline is advanced.

So in essence what you will have is a historical interactive map of the Ardennes offensive, with the ability to dip into that point in time, to see in detail the OOB of the battle, and the forces involved, the resources they had available, and even have a chance to see if you could have done better than the commanders at that time did.

Now how cool is that [8D]

[ChrisMaiorana]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as a possibility for Co2 but from a scenario creators point of view it would nice to be able to specify certain objectives for units maybe regiment sized or bigger in scenmakr. They could be AI objectives assigned at a regimental level. That way you could help shape the AI plan even further.

[dazkaz15]

I can't imagine it would be too difficult to adapt my proposed interactive campaign map, to be included in the scenario maker, so that guys like Caphillrat can also use it to tie all their user made scenarios together into a campaign.
Especially as planning graphics, and overlays are on top of the Command Ops 2 feature list [;)]

[ChrisMaiorana]

Neat idea Daz

[stardark]

This reminds me of 1944-Across the Rhine developed and published by Microprose 1994. There was a historical and hypothetical campaign. In the historical, you could choose one out of three armoured divisions of the US and Axis forces and play according to their path from France to Germany from September 1944 to May 1945. There was an smaller arrow in the general path which showed if you fared better or worse than the original armoured division. The path, however, always remained the same.

I think this is comparable to daz's suggestion.

Greetz!

Edit: here's a video showing what I mean. The historical campaign and the overview window is shown at 0:40. youtube.com/watch?v=8ITMmCcVkRs

[JamesLxx]

((I believe Wodin is working on something like this right now?))

So why not.....

Expand the existing level of command right down to individual squad/team/vehicle level. Obviously the map detail would have to be seriously revamped to achieve this. The same AI principles of command ops - orders, planning, reassessment, sop's, real life tactics ect would apply using a faster decision cycle at the localised tactical level.

Its a lot of work I know but the reason for doing this is threefold:

1: You'd get a less abstracted and thus more realistic combat result.
ie instead of company A fires at company B - company B retreats, the result would be the actual on-going platoon/squad combat.

2: The player will now have both an operational & tactical level game.
A player could zoom down to a formation which has just received its orders and then lead that formation as well as commanding the operation as whole. Its up to the player what levels he plays at.

3: This would broaden the potential audience.
As well as being the most realistic operational simulation command ops would also be in a league above existing ww2 tactical games - driven by the believable decisions of the ComOps AI while generating endless tactical situations that would be part of the greater battle unfolding simultaneously around them. Also the involvement factor is deeper when following the unfolding drama of the men themselves in relation to the bigger picture.

...and maybe in the far future...the operational level could be played out on a 2D map in the style of the time from which you could then zoom into a 3D representation of terrain and troops...

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: JamesL

((I believe Wodin is working on something like this right now?))

So why not.....

Expand the existing level of command right down to individual squad/team/vehicle level. Obviously the map detail would have to be seriously revamped to achieve this. The same AI principles of command ops - orders, planning, reassessment, sop's, real life tactics ect would apply using a faster decision cycle at the localised tactical level.

Its a lot of work I know but the reason for doing this is threefold:

1: You'd get a less abstracted and thus more realistic combat result.
ie instead of company A fires at company B - company B retreats, the result would be the actual on-going platoon/squad combat.

2: The player will now have both an operational & tactical level game.
A player could zoom down to a formation which has just received its orders and then lead that formation as well as commanding the operation as whole. Its up to the player what levels he plays at.

3: This would broaden the potential audience.
As well as being the most realistic operational simulation command ops would also be in a league above existing ww2 tactical games - driven by the believable decisions of the ComOps AI while generating endless tactical situations that would be part of the greater battle unfolding simultaneously around them. Also the involvement factor is deeper when following the unfolding drama of the men themselves in relation to the bigger picture.

...and maybe in the far future...the operational level could be played out on a 2D map in the style of the time from which you could then zoom into a 3D representation of terrain and troops...

This has been a consideration for the game dating back to COTA and an effort started there to implement island warfare in the Pacific.

Since that time, RangerX3X has developed an Estab reflecting the US Marine Corps structure in World War II over the past few years.

RangerX3X and I are collaborating with Bletchley_Geek and CapHillRat on developing a series of scenarios centered on the three week confrontation between the US and Japan on Saipan in June / July 1944.

Saipan was selected because it was the Allies first break into Tojo's Inner Defense Zone, which cut supply to Japanese forces in the Central Pacific, protected supply routing through the Central Pacific to Allied operations against Japan, and provide a base which allowed the B-29 strike force of the US to bomb viturally any industrial center in Japan, most particularly Tokyo.

Saipan also was the first Corps level operation in the Pacific, involving two Marine Divisions and one Army division against a Japanese division and independent combat brigade defending the island. The land area, duration, and complexity allowed for Command Ops operational level structure to be used efficiently in crafting the battles.

Details of the progress are contained in RangerX3X's PACOPS Blog: http://pacifictheateroperations.blogspot.com/

The critical effort is focused on defining the Japanese, Amphibious Warfare, and naval platform not designed in existing CO Estabs, but used extensively in the Pacific campaigns, developing a Japanese force structure, and defining Japanese doctrine for that force structure.

The initial scenario is being designed to be adaptable to use dismounted operations and transport operations (primarily amphibious warfare) when CO2 is released.

In addition, the foundation can be used to support small unit operations on the Coral atolls in the Gilberts and Marshalls, and the use of limited formations to control large expanses of terrain in the Solomons and New Guinea.

If you're interested in more information, see RangerX3X's blog and his posts of updates in the Command Ops forum.

[dazkaz15]

This is a very rough image of the concept for a historical campaign.
I'm sorry I don't have time to spend on making it look professional at the moment.

You can see the concept of the planning graphics, and the scale for the campaign map.
They are cluttered in this image because it is trying to represent a period of several days, with one still image.
In my proposed interactive map it would be far less cluttered as it would only have to represent the current day, due to the ability to use the time line slider at the bottom.

Also the map could look better, and at a larger scale, but this is the best I could find in the limited time I have at the moment.

It currently shows the medal overlay. This can be turned on and off with a button in the tool bar.
In the image you can see that the player would have won a marginal victory for the Hofen scenario, and has been awarded the Iron Cross.
For the Elsenborn Ridge scenario, the player has won a decisive victory and been awarded the knights cross with diamonds and oakleaves.
The next scenario they would need to play to advance the campaign is the Loshiem Gap scenario, which is represented by the crossed swords.

As I have already said this is just a very rough concept image.
Lots of fluff can, and should be added.
Examples might be, small icons on the map that link to a pop up of a historical photograph of that location.
A better map.
Historical mouseover popups with information on the Divisions, and the commanders.
Text boxes placed on the map to explain movement, and battles that took place in that location on the day of the timeline.
Thumbnail images of the scenario maps as an overlay button.
Main supply routes, ammo and fuel dumps.

Fog of war options.
For example do you want to see the movement and locations of the enemy formations on the campaign map.
Maybe this should be coded so you can't until you have completed the scenario?
Or even better if someone has the time to do the research, maybe a true fog of war can be created to include just the locations, of formations that the opposing side historically knew about?

So what do you think guys?

[Ron]

I really like the idea of a branching campaign of linked scenarios, related but not carrying over anything - rewarding brilliance with a 'medal' as overall CO and ultimately being dismissed for failure with a chance to 'come back' also of course. I like the idea of letting the player review his forces at the end of a battle to see kills inflicted. I don't really care for a replay of the battle.

I agree that some form of chrome to the map presentation and a streamlined UI is vital. I am not sure of the 3D idea for the map at all; it would look kind of odd at this scale imo. I think retaining the 2-D counters and map is fine; the map just needs a lot of love to bring it alive both in colour and perception. More varied sounds and visual effects may help also. Just right now the whole experience is completely cerebral and unfortunately bland for the other senses.

I understand, but do not like the idea of reissuing 'upgraded' scenarios. No need to go into the price/value aspect arguments again, we all make our choices with our wallets. If scenario packs are to be sold and released, I would prefer new theaters/battles with some new content included.

It is an interesting question whether the game can move forward on a part time basis. I would think not. What it seems to need is more dedicated people involved to push out an updated engine that's more inviting, plus new content etc more frequently to build up some buzz. Maybe a dedicated game designer/producer to provide focus? This issue has been raised before yet the underlying problem remains it seems.

[dazkaz15]

I personally don't need new content at the moment.
I still have hundreds of hours of scenarios I haven't played yet, and that's not including the community produced stuff [X(]
I do understand how some want the Eastern Front theatre though, and certainly don't begrudge them that.

As a business model I would like to see Panther work on engine upgrades, and release them every year.

Something Panther does extremely well is communicate and listen to its player base.
I think if at the start of every development update cycle they sat down and discussed what they could potentially achieve in a year, then maybe ask the community with a pole the priorities that they would like the new features to be worked on, I think this would go down very well.
If they then as Miguel suggested keep a blog on what they are working on, it will keep people interested in the product.
At the end of that yearly development cycle, they should just release whatever, they have managed to get finished.

As the player base has been kept informed on what has been developed, and indeed voted on it as a priority, its then up to them if they want to invest in it or wait another year, for more content to be added.
This would almost be like an optional yearly subscriptions fee, to keep the development of the game going, for which I would be more than happy to invest in.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Ron

I am not sure of the 3D idea for the map at all; it would look kind of odd at this scale imo. I think retaining the 2-D counters and map is fine; the map just needs a lot of love to bring it alive both in colour and perception.

Ron the 3D map can also be seen in 2D just by moving the camera to vertical.
Where the 3D would really help is visualizing the relief, and the LOS.
If you then wanted to revert to 2D just centre the camera to north, and straight down, I'm sure it would probably have a hot key for doing this [;)]

[RangerX3X]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X
This is probably a strange request and I don't mean to hijeck daz's thread (yes I do), however I would like to see X-Fire support for the game so I can track total hours played. Maybe it's just me, but I like seeing that kind of thing.

I've been doing some research on that, Tim, and I see that they have an SDK which was last updated in 2006 or so. That's a bad sign.

It's a shame that Steam doesn't allow you to add non-Steam games to your library (as for instance Spotify or iTunes do with songs). But of course, we could also get on Steam and generate keys for you (devs can generate as many keys as they want, at no cost).

[8D]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X



[8D]

How did you do that? [X(]