Speaker's Corner Summer 2014 - An on-line survey

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: phoenix
A propos of my comment above - the Hofen write-up on the new site does make it seem that you could have fun playing Hofen Ho-Down (and get a Decisive Vic) as Allies, by giving only 4 orders.....no doubt the RIGHT 4 orders, but, all the same, you wouldn't get away with that either playing Hofen as Axis (as it's meant to be played, I believe) or playing as Allies against a competent human. It's good to stress what the AI can do, of course - it differentiates this game - but maybe another little piece showing how a certain degree of micromanagement (though let's not call it that) really pays off would balance things out for those who might - as Kip suggests - get bored issuing only 4 orders. Any of Daz's AARs would do it, or even a page from one of them. No?

Well it is indeed an easy scenario for the Allies against the AI

We don't have an editorial line, yet I would indeed like to have on the site more AAR's offering different approaches to Command Ops. You know that I am not someone who will tell you that this game can be run on autopilot or that it was entirely designed to support that kind of gameplay. The idea is to get rid of as many "menial jobs" typically found in most operational wargames out there as we can.

Daz's excellent visual stuff can be hard to fit into the design of the site, I would love to hear any ideas from him on that. In any case we're just starting with the site I hope there will be much more stuff there to read in the coming months.

Let me repeat again the call for materials we did a few weeks ago, there were a few answers, and I need to double check we got back in touch with them.

Is the problem that my images are to big to fit on the new site Miguel?
If so is it the physical dimensions, or the file size or both?
What would be the max size they can be?

I haven't had time to experiment yet, with PDF format, but if it can handle the size of my slides, maybe thumbnail images that link to the PDF, would be the way to do it?

[Phoenix100]

What about a game option to turn off command load so you could merrily order as many units as you want without penalty.

Indeed, you can already do this with the editors quite easily. I changed the command load to something ridiculous for the on-map-boss in the big Maas-Rijn scenario once, just experimenting. It wasn't hard to do.

The game is extremely flexible in terms of what you might wish to command, and the options are even more numerous if you choose to meddle with the editors a little.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: phoenix
A propos of my comment above - the Hofen write-up on the new site does make it seem that you could have fun playing Hofen Ho-Down (and get a Decisive Vic) as Allies, by giving only 4 orders.....no doubt the RIGHT 4 orders, but, all the same, you wouldn't get away with that either playing Hofen as Axis (as it's meant to be played, I believe) or playing as Allies against a competent human. It's good to stress what the AI can do, of course - it differentiates this game - but maybe another little piece showing how a certain degree of micromanagement (though let's not call it that) really pays off would balance things out for those who might - as Kip suggests - get bored issuing only 4 orders. Any of Daz's AARs would do it, or even a page from one of them. No?

Well it is indeed an easy scenario for the Allies against the AI

We don't have an editorial line, yet I would indeed like to have on the site more AAR's offering different approaches to Command Ops. You know that I am not someone who will tell you that this game can be run on autopilot or that it was entirely designed to support that kind of gameplay. The idea is to get rid of as many "menial jobs" typically found in most operational wargames out there as we can.

Daz's excellent visual stuff can be hard to fit into the design of the site, I would love to hear any ideas from him on that. In any case we're just starting with the site I hope there will be much more stuff there to read in the coming months.

Let me repeat again the call for materials we did a few weeks ago, there were a few answers, and I need to double check we got back in touch with them.

Is the problem that my images are to big to fit on the new site Miguel?
If so is it the physical dimensions, or the file size or both?
What would be the max size they can be?

I haven't had time to experiment yet, with PDF format, but if it can handle the size of my slides, maybe thumbnail images that link to the PDF, would be the way to do it?

No, it's not about the size. Actually, I realized I have your e-mail address, so it makes more sense to write directly to you

[BletchleyGeek]

After having the survey live for a weekend I see that the numbers of people who have gone through it aren't what I'd expect: about 50% of the pageviews have turned out into responses to the survey. So I'm wondering whether people is finding it too long. I'd like to note that only the first batch of questions is mandatory: the rest is all optional, so don't get intimidated.

On the other hand I'm also wondering about dissemination: perhaps not enough people frequent these forums. So I'd like to ask people who frequent these forums and know of pockets of Command Ops players elsewhere to bring the survey to their attention. I can't really go into every single forum out there

Cheers,

Miquel.

[BletchleyGeek]

One disclaimer after reading some comments. This is not a "push poll": if somebody perceives some topic to be overrepresented, that simply matches the level of attention that it deserved in forums discussions.

ORIGINAL: wodin
I actually prefer a survey. That way you can get your wants across without being shot down etc etc. I have no really need for others to see my ideas and requests apart from the developer. Sorry if I sound anti social. It's just that I get fed up when people request a feature (an optional one at that) then a load of people jump in and say NO I don't want that. Even though they are asking for an option. Makes me mad:) One reason I love working on Tigers Unleashed with Scott, Jeff and John is that I can discuss new ideas etc with Scott without getting shouted down. As long as the developer hears what I have to say I'm happy. On a forum your post can also get lost in a long thread. I bet for instance the old ideas thread hasn't been looked at in a long time and I'm sure many posts prob haven't been read or have been missed.

For me it's a much better way to find out what people want.

Let me echo Wodin's opinion, as it uncannily matches with our intentions when we made and released this survey. The idea was to offer everybody a fair chance of sharing their opinions with us, in a way which isolates people from peer pressure. Which, as Wodin says, is indeed a factor in the forums. Let's say that - even with the very limited sample size we already have - the survey is already yielding some surprising feedback. The kind of stuff that would perhaps "get lost in the ambient noise" as Wodin points out.

In any case, the open discussion in the forums isn't irrelevant, nor we're some sort of present-day followers of Mr. Gradgrind approach to life "Numbers" only give us a skewed picture of reality. Let's say that systematized surveys are a useful complement to feeling "what's the word on the street". While I'd love to be able to go over every thread here in the utmost detail, the thing is that there aren't enough hours in the day for that.

So thank you very much to all of you who got involved with the survey. It will be most useful to orient and focus on-going discussions about our future next steps.

[wodin]

I posted a link o my Tactical Wargame facebook page.

As for the survey personally I wish more developers did this. You know that your opinions will be read and looked at compared as Bletchly and myself said getting lost in a forum somewhere. All I'm sure any of us want is our opinion heard even if it's not acted upon.

[ubiquitous]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

After having the survey live for a weekend I see that the numbers of people who have gone through it aren't what I'd expect: about 50% of the pageviews have turned out into responses to the survey.

I'm a non-responder. I took a look at the survey out of curiosity, but will get round to filling it in this weekend.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

You have to play the game at Bn level to get the best out of it, giving most orders at Bn level.

Complete n00b question: what do you do with all of the regimental- and divisional-level units once you have given orders to the individual battalions? These left-over units typically include artillery, engineers, flak battalions, regimental HQs, and various other bits and pieces. Usually I don't know what to do with all of this stuff so I just issue a "defend in situ" order to the divisional HQ and leave those units to their own devices. Am I missing out?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: ubiquitous

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

After having the survey live for a weekend I see that the numbers of people who have gone through it aren't what I'd expect: about 50% of the pageviews have turned out into responses to the survey.

I'm a non-responder. I took a look at the survey out of curiosity, but will get round to filling it in this weekend.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

You have to play the game at Bn level to get the best out of it, giving most orders at Bn level.

Complete n00b question: what do you do with all of the regimental- and divisional-level units once you have given orders to the individual battalions? These left-over units typically include artillery, engineers, flak battalions, regimental HQs, and various other bits and pieces. Usually I don't know what to do with all of this stuff so I just issue a "defend in situ" order to the divisional HQ and leave those units to their own devices. Am I missing out?

The defend in situ order will allow artillery to emplace and provide supporting fires as the friendly AI determines, but that may not be sufficient to support your plan. It also means that combat capable subordinates to corps, division, regimental / brigade units not directly attached to line battalions will stop in their tracks and defend whether the location being defended is useful to the operational plan or not. The reason why they are subordinates to the higher echelon instead of being immediately attached to battalions is because they provide the tactical support a major unit commander can use to facilitate assignments he gives to his battalion (and below) commanders.

The 'bits and pieces' can address a higher echelon commander's need to provide security to his / her command (hold a bridge or defend a crossroads / town for example), be attached to lower echelon units to assist in attaining their goals (flak unit attaches to battalion attack to provide fire support for example), or be held in reserve (which the in situ order reflects) to do things like patch holes in a defensive front, exploit a weakness in the enemy's defenses when exposed by line unit activities, or secure rear area lines of communication as the parent command advances.

To this point, each individual corps, division, regiment / brigade under your command ought to have some purpose in the overall command strategy, even if it's to maintain a presence in a sector of the battlefield (e.g. hold the right side of a line). Battalions, companies, and platoons are then assigned specific group tasks within that parent unit's overall strategy or removed from that command and assigned to another which has a more prominent role in your battle plan.

There's a (very) broad discussion of this in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare

Subheadings under the macro heading can get you more into the details of operational warfare.

If you really want to get into it, studying the doctrine of the various force doctrines of the World War II era will get into even more specifics about how each type of combat unit was supposed to be used (as nation forces were worn out by battle, some units would have their roles morphed, one example the German 88mm Flak units which started out as anti-aircraft units but were transitioned to anti-tank units as the capabilties of the 88mm guns and ammunition was made more flexible for operational purposes, as I recall by Rommel's needs in the African desert).

Hope this helps.

[Phoenix100]

What Jim says.[:)]

Plus, if I were you I would treat all your arty as possibly the most important and powerful weapon you have and give separate orders to control it (your use of arty, to support crucial plans at crucial phases (putting in a prelim bombard before an attack, for example, which the AI doesn't presently do), and to break up enemy attacks or create long distance 'ambushes' to stop him reinforcing or flooding along key-routes you wish to block, before you have time to block them, really is crucial to doing well in the game) . Many people cntrl-click groups of arty to create user-controlled firebases which they place so as to ensure the arty is in range of the action they wish to cover - cntrl click those you want in the group and give them a defend order on the spot you want them - they will still be available for on-call missions requested by the AI, but will now be a detached group under your direct control and you can get them all to fire on one place (should you wish to make a favourable impression on the guys down there)just by clicking the new superior unit of the new group (the command lines will lead to the unit the AI has selected as in charge of your group)and giving the bombard order to that unit.

Peter

PS: There's a great thread somewhere, by BG, I think, about the efficient use of arty assets and how to get the most out of AI control of them. Maybe it's a sticky, I don't remember.

Edit: Just searched for it. Here: tm.asp?m=3286717