Matrix Games Forums

I've just spotted that the latest installment of the 'Panzer Campaigns' series is going to be 'Market Garden'. Aside from the fact that it's yet another game from the same battle :sleep: it should make for an interesting comparison of game types. That is, of course, assuming that anyone would be interested in playing both games for the amount of time it would require to form a reasonable opinion on the subject.

The problem is that at the strategic and upper operational level, real life commanders took more time to plan their 'moves' than even the most meticulous gamers. If you were playing a game on Normandy, where you wear Montgomery's hat, for instance, you woudn't need a three hour meeting with General Bradley to discuss what you wanted the Americans to do . I do think, however, that games like the CM series and Uncommon Valor, where once you've given your orders a certain amount of time elapses before you can change them can start to come close to the dilemmas faced by a real life commander, as much as any game can.

Firefly wrote:I do think, however, that games like the CM series and Uncommon Valor, where once you've given your orders a certain amount of time elapses before you can change them can start to come close to the dilemmas faced by a real life commander, as much as any game can.

AA does this also by applying a delay between the player issuing an order and subordinate units receiving it. The delay is dependent on unit quality and condition, and distance between headquarters. The result is that although you can change an order as soon as you've issued it, all that will happen is an increase in the time it takes for any action to result at all.

An even more effective penalty occurs when an order is changed after the executing HQ has already passed the original order on to its subunits. The delay between the executing HQ receiving a change in orders, and this change being passed on to the subunits, creates the risk of the force being quite thoroughly disrupted, even without enemy action. The tension between reacting to events and preventing this disruption in your forces is a big part of the dilemma facing real-life commanders and is very well modelled in AA.

Cheers
33

Golf33 wrote:AA does this also by applying a delay between the player issuing an order and subordinate units receiving it. The delay is dependent on unit quality and condition, and distance between headquarters. The result is that although you can change an order as soon as you've issued it, all that will happen is an increase in the time it takes for any action to result at all.

The system works well in AA as the scale is right. As Corps commander you would expect to be pretty 'hands on' reacting to events more or less 'as they happen'. In a game like 'Uncommon Valour' where you are commanding the combined air/land/sea forces in the South Pacific you would not expect to be issuing orders on anything less than a daily basis. Thus a 'turn-based' system works more effectively than a 'real-time' in this game as it actually is more realistic. As regards 'Combat Mission', whilst I enjoy playing it, I prefer a more 'real-time' approach to games of that scale.

Hi One and all
I had been looking around for a good accessible hex based game for a while now ,downloaded a few free games and demos. Spwaw was pretty good , but wanted division based game so I picked up Korsun Pocket. Looks to be a good game but man it is not a easy game to learn to play ( of corse I new it would be a little harder then say Combat Mission) anyway after working on it for 4 days I am just about ready to play some thing besides the lesson scenarios .
I got my hands on the Airborne Assault R D Demo not long ago and I must say there is a world of difference in accessability. AARD took maybe a few hours to get the hang of it .
So the point of this ramble is while I am glade I bought Korsun Pocket , I doubt I will feel the need to buy another Hex based game any time soon. So by the time the new Airborne Assault comes out
I will be ready for it , who knows by then I just might have figured out how to actually Play Korsun .......

BnickB

Ha! Ha! Therein lies the AA engine elegance. The game and the interface looks simple, but there is much complexity to be mastered. So, you can jump in and play immediately, but can you make Model or Monty happy? That's another question.

Perhaps, it will be easier for others than it was for me. I didn't have any ground warfare experience except for Combat Mission. CMBO proved useful for some stuff like understanding the weapons and the value of good terrain. However, I was fairly clueless when I started out. After a year, I now have a clue.

I recently acquired 'Korsun Pocket' and I have to say I'm finding it a bit impenetrable at the moment although I have also acquired 'Uncommon Valour' which is eating into my time quite a lot

I found AA relatively easy to get into, possibly because I came into it from playing standard RTS games like 'Red Alert' (stop laughing at the back ) and 'Sudden Strike'. AA was like a breath of fresh air after playing those designs with its command structure and 'realism'.

I've played both AA & Korsun Pocket and firmly believe that continuous time is both more realistic and better to play. KP is a good game, I have enjoyed playing it, but it is just that - a game. The turn based I go u go type system is like 2 boxers saying "right you stay still while I hit you for a minute then I'll let you hit me for a minute."

To conclude: Hex based - good game, poor simulation; Continuous time -good game, good simulation.

JamesL wrote:I've played both AA & Korsun Pocket and firmly believe that continuous time is both more realistic and better to play. KP is a good game, I have enjoyed playing it, but it is just that - a game. The turn based I go u go type system is like 2 boxers saying "right you stay still while I hit you for a minute then I'll let you hit me for a minute."

To conclude: Hex based - good game, poor simulation; Continuous time -good game, good simulation.

Your boxers analogy is not 100% adequate, because when I "hit the other boxer" he defends himself proficiently. But I agree somehow. I think the WEGO system is a bit better.

With wego-system, one can make "suprise" moves, since an opponent can react to it only on the next turn, not during the same...

Keke wrote:With wego-system, one can make "suprise" moves, since an opponent can react to it only on the next turn, not during the same...

In Airborne Assault the same effect is achieved by the 'orders delay' which is variable, unlike 'wego' systems (like CM) when it is fixed by the length of the turn.

Kevinugly wrote:In Airborne Assault the same effect is achieved by the 'orders delay' which is variable, unlike 'wego' systems (like CM) when it is fixed by the length of the turn.

I was commenting differences between igo-ugo and wego-system...May I also point out that wego-systems, like in CM, have order delays implemented. When PCT is compared to a propely made wego-system, the only real difference is that with the latter, one cannot intervene, ie. give new orders whenever possible.

If you want to make a surprise move, the best system is continous time.

If you play WEGO or Ugo-Igo, then, before you issue orders you can study the map.

Then study it a bit more
And keep studying it.
And then suddenly notice an enemy unit you had not noticed before.

In continous time it is possible to pt in an attack over there as a feint but put in the main attack somewhere else before the opponent has a chance to react.

And that’s why I prefer continous time.

But it is more appropriate at the lowest level and less appropriate as you go up through the levels

Joe 98 wrote: If you play WEGO or Ugo-Igo, then, before you issue orders you can study the map.

Then study it a bit more
And keep studying it.
And then suddenly notice an enemy unit you had not noticed before.

In continous time it is possible to pt in an attack over there as a feint but put in the main attack somewhere else before the opponent has a chance to react.

And that’s why I prefer continous time.

But it is more appropriate at the lowest level and less appropriate as you go up through the levels

With PCT one can always press the pause button...

Keke wrote:I was commenting differences between igo-ugo and wego-system...May I also point out that wego-systems, like in CM, have order delays implemented. When PCT is compared to a propely made wego-system, the only real difference is that with the latter, one cannot intervene, ie. give new orders whenever possible.

I haven't played CM that much yet so I wasn't aware that facility was built in.

Yes it does have a very crude orders delay system. If I remember correctly it's about a few minutes.

bump

Hrm, just on a side-note - wasn't one of the very early BattleIsland games a 'split wego'? Because Move Phase and Fire Phase was split and players always played the other phase (oh I remember the fun - it could be played on one monitor - we attached some cardboard in the middle so one couldn't see the others units).
Of course weird things could happen - like issuing move orders and finding out the unit got destroyed before moving

Captaine wrote something interesting in the sense the 'player' in TBS can just better 'reflect' the multiple consciousness involved - well - probably only if one has multiple personalities
Just kidding - what I meant - even tho one is the 'CO' in a wargame this doesn't neccessarily mean one is each and every sub CO too! Those subcommanders have usually a different point of view and thus might not always want to follow orders exactly or even completely. In TB it is easier to 'sacrifice' a unit - of course some commanders might be willing to make a stand till the last bullet for the 'sake' of whatever; but it is not likely that every commander will do and there is a chance that the commander 'dies' and the second in command will act different.

murx