COMMAND OPS : LEGENDS OF THE BLITZKRIEG - An Introduction

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
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.

That sounds like a fun setup. I have not seen the short intense combat that you are reporting in my play tests. I believe it all comes down to your data. Of course mid 80's weapons had both higher lethality and higher ROFs.. could that have been the issue? How was your logistic chain set up?

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.

Not what I've seen so far. I will try to set up a little test scenario and do a quick AAR in the near future to give a glimpse into how combat in this game will look.

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?

The Estabs for these tactical games will need to be specially massaged. This is still a work in progress, but I hope to share some of the thinking and solutions that we will deploy in the game post release.

Bil

[Perturabo]

I'd love to see France '40.

Also, Poland '39, China '37 and Western Front '17-'18.

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Also, Poland '39, China '37 and Western Front '17-'18.

It's like you are reading my mind. [8D]

Poland would be very interesting, and has been largely ignored... WW1 also would be fun to do.. there were a lot more battles of movement than people might realize.

Let's get this one out the door first though, eh? [;)]

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

That sounds like a fun setup. I have not seen the short intense combat that you are reporting in my play tests. I believe it all comes down to your data. Of course mid 80's weapons had both higher lethality and higher ROFs.. could that have been the issue? How was your logistic chain set up?

My guesstimate was that the quick combat partly was due to the amount of high rof and that units quickly ran out of ammo. I however based the modern assault rifles from the existing estab values of the BAR, BREN or StG44. I increased the muzzle velocity and rate of fire (rof almost doubled) , decreased the shell weight and tweaked the range and accuracy values from actual data for certain weapon models.

The units involved in my test where also pretty small, a 28 man platoon disintegrates rather quickly when in contact in the time scale that the game runs now. So I am really looking forward to the changes that is needed in the scale to to try this again.


I never went into trying to create a logistic chain and focused entirely on getting the engagements right. I saw some problems in how to manage it on the sub-batallion level where the company has organic supply for the initial fighting in the form of some kind of HQ/Logistical platoon. How have you solved it when it comes to these problems on the lower scale? The supply bases in the game as of now are abstracted logistical units bunched together, I do not know how the same approach will work on this new level.

The Estabs for these tactical games will need to be specially massaged. This is still a work in progress, but I hope to share some of the thinking and solutions that we will deploy in the game post release.

Great! Looking forward to it!

[BAL]

Actually, I'd be more interested - (and play the game more) - at a platoon scale. Not that there's anything wrong with the system as is. [:)]

I think France '40 is a good choice, too.

[hjc]

Speaking of platoon scale - is there a chance that in future during a scenario we would be able to break a company down into its platoon elements? This could be useful for establishing a broader perimeter at times.

I know that it would probably not be possible, given that all the TOEs would have to be rejigged to include platoon definitions. Some other wargames I've played recently have allowed larger units to be broken down, e.g. division into regiments.

Just an idea - but with some people expressing a preference for platoon level games, if the engine could eventually smoothly handle both platoon and company levels it would be nice.
I like the company scale of Command Ops but am looking forward to LOTB.

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: BofH

Speaking of platoon scale - is there a chance that in future during a scenario we would be able to break a company down into its platoon elements? This could be useful for establishing a broader perimeter at times.

I doubt that breaking a unit down into its subordinate elements will ever be possible within this engine while a game is in progress.

Bil

[wodin]

I've died and gone to heaven!!! Not ot bothered about the theatre however i love the scale. Tis a dream. I only hope we see more in the series at this scale and I'd adore a Stalingrad battle. Scenarios like the pioneer attack at the Barrikady for instance. God that would be amazing and city fighting will ve a real test for the game engine.

Really looking forward to it.

I do hope the future games don't cover really obscure niche wars\theaters like some mentioned here. I imagine they wont as your restricting sales. Would like to see something in Italy like Monte Casino or I'm up for Poland. I'd hate an Africa game, they are more suited to larger tank battles and a larger scale as the terrain is to bland and boring for infantry fighting.

I'd be very happy with a WW1 game aswell. At this scale you could even do the Western front and cover trench raids or some of the minor clashes. Or 1914 upto Neuve Chappel in '15 or March '18 and the great German Attack cover that then follow it up with a series covering the allied counter attack upto the end of the War...lovely. Think of all those fortifications then open warfare followed by more fortifications..would be excellent o play. Everyone mentions the East front with regards to WW1 however they fail to see the Western front can be done aswell. Only the major attacks suffered extreme casualties on the first days and The Somme no tactics really happened on the first day,they did on some parts of the batteline and the British where quite successful on those parts until they over extended the attack Sadly though most followed orders to walk slowly in line, this was NOT normal infantry procedure in WW1 but was used because it was felt that the Kitchener Army was going into battle for the first time and wouldn't be able to cope with using the current Inf tactics (of fire and movement and keeping to cover) of the day and also they thought the bombardment would have wiped the Germans off the face of the earth. These days everyone thinks thats how they fought on the Western front nearly all the way through it however thats not the case at all. Many trench raids where successful and most of the Major attacks where very successful on the first tow or three days but they always over extended and instead of calling it aday they'd keep throwing troops in the hope a final push would breakthrough. Out of all this came the bite and hold attack. WW1 was a massive school for all ranks in industrialised warfare and what they learnt went on to help them in the next war.

Anyway went off on a tangent then.

So looking forward (Sound like my daughter) to this game.

[Bil H]

Wodin, re: WW1 battles, I agree there is a lot of fodder for great scenarios at this scale. In fact taking the book Infantry in Battle http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/cgsc/carl/d ... Battle.pdf and pulling select examples from it might be enough, along with a few late war battles featuring tanks thrown in for fun.

I think the map scale would need to be adjusted though to account for the higher troop densities, so a few additional lower zoom levels would be nice. These are on my wish list for LOTB anyway so we'll see what we can do.

[wodin]

Has this scale of the engine benefited from the military contract work Dave did using the engine for platoon scale? Hope it is as I imagine the funding and the military would want something extra special plus it means the changes have been made already for everything to work well at platoon level.

[Arjuna]

wodin,

We do not have any military funding for developing our engine yet.

[wodin]

my mistake. I thought you mentioned during your contract work at one point that they wanted\you where developing a platoon scale version of CO. Shame as I imagined that the hard work chaning the engine to fit this scale had already been done.

[Bil H]

A few new bones can be seen on the Real and Simulated Wars BLOG here: http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/201 ... .html#more

Several new screenshots as well. Thanks Chelco, great write up!

[junk2drive]

Thanks Chelco, you do wargaming a great service.

[wodin]

Thanks Bil, thanks Chelco.

I've mentioned it on my forum and on the Tactical Wargame FB page. The great thing about the FB page, though it only has about 135 likes,is that your reaching loads more people who may not know about these games compared to forums etc. I've got a fair few likes from people through FB and not forums so hopefully will see the type of wargames around and about.

[wodin]

@Bil a few questions have been asked over at the forum. I hope I don't sound to negative in my queries, just trying to get a grasp of the game, tow others have asked some questions aswell.

[Hexagon]

Well, i need say that i am not a big fan of previous Panther games... more for a problem i have with operational games in real time... but at tactical scale i can deal with real time hehehe, apart this i find interesting a game covering 1940 campaigns (maybe game can asume some modding/creation of maps) and for tactical games are great options for a game... i think in north Africa or the forgoten Pacific front (could be great a game covering the first part with the japanese offensives).

I follow this game with interest... until i see initial price [:D]

Good luck with game guys.

PD: i need ask this... any plan for release date??? at least know if we can expect this soon (end of year), near future (end of next year) or when Skynet use our grandsons to play wargames in a postapocaliptic battlefield [8|]

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

PD: i need ask this... any plan for release date??? at least know if we can expect this soon (end of year), near future (end of next year) or when Skynet use our grandsons to play wargames in a postapocaliptic battlefield [8|]

Thanks for the comments. We are aiming for an early 2013 release.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Well, i need say that i am not a big fan of previous Panther games... more for a problem i have with operational games in real time... but at tactical scale i can deal with real time hehehe, apart this i find interesting a game covering 1940 campaigns (maybe game can asume some modding/creation of maps) and for tactical games are great options for a game... i think in north Africa or the forgoten Pacific front (could be great a game covering the first part with the japanese offensives).

I follow this game with interest... until i see initial price [:D]

Good luck with game guys.

PD: i need ask this... any plan for release date??? at least know if we can expect this soon (end of year), near future (end of next year) or when Skynet use our grandsons to play wargames in a postapocaliptic battlefield [8|]

Hexagon CO series is more Grand Tactical than operational I find, I'm not to keen on operational myself however I always see coy level games more Grand Tactical.

[Hexagon]

Well, for me tactical games end in section scale (well, i think that in USA and UK is called platoon no??? i refer to the previous step before company level), when you control companies game for me is more operational than tactical... i think for example in PzC series where you control companies but they are more in operational enviroment than in tactical battles (well, is an exception, in Tobruk 41 some scens have units divided in sections/platoons to cover small fights and some units like comandos/rangers are divided in this scale, not comapany level), one good example for me is when you control in a scenario an army corps using companies as smaller unit, you are more in operational level at least for me.

Ummm with the title of "Legends of the Blitzkrieg" they can cover more "original" battles like for example as i say in previous post the japanese blitzkrieg (Philipines, Singapore, Burma...) and talking about WWI... you have the Meggido battle a pure blitzkrieg battle.

Good know that game is planed for at least next year specially if is released early... at least is not a "coming soon" trademark, i wait one of this near 2 years [:@]

EDIT: are you going to ask matrixgames to create a specific section in "Coming Soon and In Development"??? i think that is better to have all info and discusions about CO:LOTB in same place not mixed with CO.