Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: phoenix

They did emergency drops into Oosterbeek. They were largely unsuccessful - supplies landing just beyond the perimetre - but they did try to do it.

And as far as road supplies go, if a column was interdicted up a road they were using for supply, are you saying that if there was a healthy diversion available, just 10kms to the flank, they wouldn't have simply re-routed the column to there?

So, for example - the pic below. Supply down main road interdicted at 1. How long would they p[ut up with that when, off map, there are possible re-routes to the new position marked 2?

In a good scenario design, ground transport supply entry point(s) should reflect routes from depots to the map edge secured prior to the start of the scenario, or the location of a depot itself.

The Germans in Bulge would usually have access to SEPs along the east edge of a map because roads coming from the north, south, and west of what became the salient boundaries were controlled by the Allies from the start.

The designer should also consider that not all roads on the east edge of the map were viable communication lines to German supplies. Some on the north and south ends of the FLOT might wind off map through allied territory before bending back to the east edge of the map.

Parachute and glider supported SEPs are different, because they are points on map where planes are scheduled to leave supplies.

If there were an ability to change them, it would be based on how effective communication was with rear commanders and how quickly the rear administrative engine could plan and implement a new drop point. Communications from isolated units is significantly less effective in World War II, and the paperwork generated to replan multiple carbon copies of typed documents and forms carried by messenger from point to point in the ETO administrative hierarchy.

and the paperwork generated to replan multiple carbon copies of typed documents and forms carried by messenger from point to point in the ETO administrative hierarchy.


Lol, Jim. [:'(]

Actually what Jim says is very true. Communications back in 1944 was a far cry from the instantaneous comms we have today. The 1st Abn Div had crap crystal sets that failed to work in the urban environment it found itself in at Arnhem. The only way they got any change to the supply drop zones was after the link up with 30th Corps and it was able to use its more powerful comms capability. Even then IIRC it took them 48 hours to effect a change for one small drop.

I appreciate that as a player you want more control, but RL commanders often don't have that degree of control.

I agree.

We have to remember where dealing with WW2 so comms was no where near as sophisticated as it is today. We have to bear that in mind whilst playing. What seems obvious and easy todo for us playing the game most likely wasn't so easy during the battle.

SO in effect when we come across something like this and it looks so straight forward to us we have way more knowledge and what is in essence borg spotting which give us a much better picture of FOW than our real life counterparts.

The failure of the radio equipment at Arnhem was a massive issue.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Actually what Jim says is very true. Communications back in 1944 was a far cry from the instantaneous comms we have today. The 1st Abn Div had crap crystal sets that failed to work in the urban environment it found itself in at Arnhem. The only way they got any change to the supply drop zones was after the link up with 30th Corps and it was able to use its more powerful comms capability. Even then IIRC it took them 48 hours to effect a change for one small drop.

I appreciate that as a player you want more control, but RL commanders often don't have that degree of control.

-100m grid for map maker.
-ability to check line of sight in the map maker.

This same argument should be applied to call for fire comms. Not every unit had the ability to call for fire 24/7.

ORIGINAL: Rock64

This same argument should be applied to call for fire comms. Not every unit had the ability to call for fire 24/7.

How would you implement that in game though?

Most if not all Coy would have a radio, or in more static locations a land line. Maybe they can't get through to higher level artillery, because of range or obstructions like hills, or because the equipment has been damaged, or cables cut due to bombardment but are in contact with closer artillery units, who would probably relay forward calls for fire to higher level artillery anyway.

Also Artillery observers (FOO's) move from HQ to HQ as the situation, dictates.

It would be unusual for a major assault to take place for instance without embedded FOO's from the various artillery units who often draw up elaborate fire plans, with pre recorded/registered targets.

So I don't see how you could implement this in game without it having to be totally random, and that would annoy the hell out of the player.

Can't we have larger images of the equipment?
And Images of the Commanders?

And advanced and/or complete bios of the commanders?

ORIGINAL: Templer

Can't we have larger images of the equipment?
And Images of the Commanders?

And advanced and/or complete bios of the commanders?

I did a kind of concept thing with pictures for the UI a while back, don't know if you have seen it or not, or maybe you think the pictures are still to small?

Link is here if you want to take a look

tm.asp?m=3284568

The more finished version would look something like this that is posted on the following page.
What you need to remember is that there is multiple equipment listed in each unit. This is just the equipment in 1 Bn HQ 1 SS Pz Regt.

Ah yes, this size is much better.
I often look at the images of the equipment to enhance my imagination.

I still miss images of the commanders. [:(]

I want an option to stop the time running when a 'flash report' and/or an 'urgent report' message comes up.

ORIGINAL: Templer

I want an option to stop the time running when a 'flash report' and/or an 'urgent report' message comes up.

You do.

Click <Pause> on the game speed.

If you go to the Msg window, you can click on the message and see where on the map it originated.

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: Templer

I want an option to stop the time running when a 'flash report' and/or an 'urgent report' message comes up.

You do.

Click <Pause> on the game speed.

If you go to the Msg window, you can click on the message and see where on the map it originated.

Just to add to Jim's post that you can turn the ON Screen messages, which are displayed at the top left of the game window, on with one of the buttons at the bottom of the UI, and also to filter the messages you see there.
Just in case you didn't know this yet.

What you need to do then is just keep an eye out for the yellow or red text, and hit pause as soon as you see it.
It's just a work around until there is an auto pause feature, that hopefully we will see in CO2.

Auto pause work around.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15


. . .

Just to add to Jim's post that you can turn the ON Screen messages, which are displayed at the top left of the game window, on with one of the buttons at the bottom of the UI, and also to filter the messages you see there.
Just in case you didn't know this yet.

What you need to do then is just keep an eye out for the yellow or red text, and hit pause as soon as you see it.
It's just a work around until there is an auto pause feature, that hopefully we will see in CO2.

[/quote]

Thanks Dazkaz, I overlooked turning the messages on, as it's SOP in my screen set up.

Back to the original, from my POV, the auto pause, if programmable at no cost to playability, ought to be available as an option rather than a feature.

Feature implies to me one gets it whether they want it or not.

At the level I choose to command operations, my choice is not to react to crisis messages unless I get a number of them in a row over a short period of time because occasional bad news notices are the result of fighting battles, but I'll trust my sub-commanders to address them on their own initiative but a lot of bad news over a short time means something significant has caused a crisis for the plan and there's a need for adjustment.

It's a kind of "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" approach.

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah



Thanks Dazkaz, I overlooked turning the messages on, as it's SOP in my screen set up.

Back to the original, from my POV, the auto pause, if programmable at no cost to playability, ought to be available as an option rather than a feature.

Feature implies to me one gets it whether they want it or not.

At the level I choose to command operations, my choice is not to react to crisis messages unless I get a number of them in a row over a short period of time because occasional bad news notices are the result of fighting battles, but I'll trust my sub-commanders to address them on their own initiative but a lot of bad news over a short time means something significant has caused a crisis for the plan and there's a need for adjustment.

It's a kind of "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" approach.

Yes, most definitely optional Jim. I totally agree.[:)]

In game images

OK I get the hint, you want a bigger picture frame and you're volunteering to get the necessary larger public domain images.

Miquel,

Could you please look into this and Skype me with some options. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

OK I get the hint, you want a bigger picture frame and you're volunteering to get the necessary larger public domain images.

Well... kind of [:'(]

I still have a Job, two needy grandkids, a dog, a large garden, and house to maintain, a wife to ...service [;)] an Elsenborn Ridge AAR that I hope to finish one day, and I do like to play the game in my spare time as well [:D]

But I will most certainly look out for some of the missing pictures for you.
In the mean time the smaller ones will also fit into a larger frame if Miguel packs it out with a green background, yes?
Also you should wait till CO2 interface upgrade, or you will be doing the work for free again [;)]
Maybe if you stop support for the very low resolution dispays you will be able to fit more on screen at a time as well?
Is there anyone reading this that still uses the lowest resolution settings?

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

OK I get the hint, you want a bigger picture frame and you're volunteering to get the necessary larger public domain images.

Maybe if you stop support for the very low resolution displays you will be able to fit more on screen at a time as well?
Is there anyone reading this that still uses the lowest resolution settings?

The issue isn't who in this forum uses low resolution, but whether supporting low resolution support is a viable option for expanding the customer base given all the other attributes attractive to someone interested in an operational level battle simulation.

It's anecdotal "evidence", but there were times in the past when I couldn't buy an intriguing title or battle mode offered by a new or updated game engine (primarily of the American Civil War and Napoleonic War eras which were my first great interest in wargaming) because its minimum requirements exceeded the capacity of the computer I owned at that time.

I wasn't going to buy a new computer or graphics card because I wanted to see horses gallop, guns expel smoke, little cannon balls throw up dirt, and infantrymen march on a 3-D battlefield as part of the "enhancement."

But I was willing to pay the price asked because even though 2-D, the game mechanics, maps, and force structures offered me a new battle to explore, or a more intriguing way to explore a battle I already owned.

Many of those titles and companies are no longer around, possibly because they made their computer overhead for those parts not related to the gameplay created a small inside a larger potential market.

It's handy that Command Ops offers the added graphics to satisfy curiosity about a system I wasn't familiar with until encountered as part of an unit Estab. But, unless there's a potential of marketing the game to a broader audience because better quality public domain photos attract more graphics and history aficionados than people who want to explore battles among World War II era forces on custom modelled terrain, I wouldn't arbitrarily cut off the potential market by limiting the systems where the game engine can be used effectively to a subset of systems now considered part of the potential market.