Matrix Games Forums

What is the WW2 part going to comprise?

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

What is the WW2 part going to comprise?

I would think WWII. Do you have any other suggestions???!!!??? [&:]

Good Hunting.

MR

Are we talking '39 to '45, east, west, pacific, africa,...?

The game engine is built more for the longer ranges and equipment of cold war to modern warfare. We have discussed WW2 and we believe there are game engine changes we could make to do the time frame. That said, we have a bunch of work ahead of us covering the Cold War decades.

Thanks for your interest.

Maybe a 50% for WWII 50% cold war... from 1945 to 1949 i think in campaign "red lightning" covering post war soviet strike in 1945 "Red Dunkirk" covering 1946 retreat, "Riding the dragon" with a chinese intervention in chinese civil war from both sides in 1948 and finally "Lord of the Red VS Patton Baggins and the magic nuke" [:D]

More serious... i prefer more a title covering middle east wars, later something to cover a mix of modern wars like India VS Pakistan, China VS Vietnam, Vietnam war in the conventional period... and later a WWIII in the post WWII in 1945 to 1955 to test the mix of WWII and WWIII but this after improve more the engine with more details in the infantry part for example.

But first lets see the first title [8|]

EDIT: i dont remember add this but if there is war in Europe... what is the situation in middle east and in the far east??? Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan... they are "good" friends allways ready to gift a sword to the enemy body [:D]

WW2? How about instead 1967 where you have a mix of various WW2 leftovers (including a few Panthers in the Syrian Army IIRC) being shredded by mid 1960s equipment! [8D] really looking forward to a great Cold War game. Are the campaigns all with NATO on the defensive or are there any late counter strokes to regain West Germany (or even liberate East Germany)?

Syrian army had ex spanish PzIV-H and Stugs III and where used more as static bunkers in the Golan, Panther last use was in french army in the Indochina war with Jacksons as counter for chinese IS-2.

Yep, WWII is overexploited... at least the Normandy-Market Garden-Bulge trinity, east front titles are not rare to but land fight on the Pacific is something rare to find.

But before a WWII title i think we can see 2 complete post WWII titles, at least one title or serie covering middle east and i see other title for a WWIII in early period in Europe.

I will say we have art and some of the mid-east data from the work started on FPME. And yes, we had a good number of WW2 platforms in there since we were shooting for 47+. I'm hoping we will go back to ME at some point down the road.

ORIGINAL: Rob322

WW2? How about instead 1967 where you have a mix of various WW2 leftovers (including a few Panthers in the Syrian Army IIRC) being shredded by mid 1960s equipment! [8D] really looking forward to a great Cold War game. Are the campaigns all with NATO on the defensive or are there any late counter strokes to regain West Germany (or even liberate East Germany)?

At this moment there are 2 campaigns. Both with NATO on the defensive.

Some of the stand alone scenarios are either Meeting Engagements or NATO attacks.

Good Hunting.

MR

Does the US National Guard make it in force?

Not in any of the scenarios that will ship with the game. I'm certain they are included in the TO&E's listed in the editor. Scenarios could be made with them easily.

The game ships with 25 maps as well, so there is plenty of ground to fight over.

Good Hunting.

MR

I'm interested. Regarding the AI, it may be challenging but is the OpFor doctrinally accurate for Soviet tactics? TacOps was/is great in this respect. And I assume you can play both sides, so for BluFor is AirLand Battle doctrine implemented? There were significant doctrinal differences and I would hope this game captures that essence. Kudos in advance if it does. [8D]

I like the mod potential. Kinda gets me psyched to recreate my GDP sector on the Czech border in the late '80s. Maybe see how long I really would have lasted with M113s and Dragons. LOL

Alright, the silence has me concerned. Speak to me of the doctrines the AI plays with. Soviet doctrine was pretty well established and emphasized battle drills at the battalion and company level to compensate for limited communications and initiative. US Army doctrine was also pretty well established per FM 100-5, Operations, for Active Defense in late 70's and then AirLand Battle in mid-80's. I don't know about the Bundeswehr or BOAR doctrine. Bottom line is that there were significant doctrinal differences between Warsaw Pact and NATO, but if the AI is pretty much generic for both sides, challenging or not, then this becomes a free-for-all anything-goes type game and not particularly realistic or historically accurate. Again, I would hope this game captures this essence because it's important. TacOps had an excellent OpFor AI for a computer opponent, but only for the one side and not for NATO forces. All I'm saying is I hope the Red Storm AI is as good. [&o]

It's not a simple answer. I'm pressed for time at this moment. I'll try to answer you when I get back home this evening.

Good Hunting.

MR

I will try to get to the question some time this evening.

Okay, let's talk AI.

The AI is not side specific. Therefore the short answer to your question is that, no, the AI doesn't simulate the Warsaw Pact doctrine specifically. That's because there are times it must also play the NATO side.

What the AI does is respect unit types. Recon units , helicopters, artillery, etc....have unique abilities. The AI recognizes and applies those.

Each unit has a character. Recon units for instance, will see better, be harder to see, not engage in offensive slugfest type combat without you beating the commander about the head and shoulders. Tank units will engage at distance right down to point blank. Missile units will engage at distance and attempt to keep their distance from the enemy units. And the list goes on.

Enter the doctrinal specific AI. Because the AI works on unit capabilities it is very easy to set up side doctrines using it.

You want Soviet doctrine? Simply place the Soviet units in their proper locations for the formations and the AI sends them forward according to their spacing and capabilities. This works extremely well to replicate Soviet or NATO doctrine while not restricting the AI to simply follow one or the other.

There are some AI tweaks we have in mind for later but for now you will see the Soviets use their Sledge Hammer! [8D]

I promise! [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

Ok thanks. Formation spacing is one thing, but Cap'n Darwin is aware of the Assault game and how TOCs and operations points were implemented - Bn TOCs for NATO and Regt TOCs for Warsaw Pact. Soviets leveraged the shortage of ops points with Co and Bn battle drills where those units would all perform the same actions. NATO had more opportunity for initiative at the unit level. This worked really well! So, as you consider AI tweaks please consider the doctrinal differences and make this a great game. [8D]

MR hit a number of those points dead on, but let me take it a bit further. There are values in each of the National Data files that controls risk and adherences to orders. We use those to impart some of the doctrinal differences. Another aspect is the units sizing. NATO forces are generally found at platoon level where most Soviet formations are at company level. This gives NATO a flexibility at the lower level to maneuver and engage in a more dynamic way. The AI does pick up on these subtle differences in structure and methods in the game. Is it perfect. No. Does it do a decent job when you take all of MR's point into the fold. Yes it does. Doctrine was never really ignored, but it had to be parsed out in a way the game engine could handle. We do have plans to expand the way the AI does its business and that plan will open up some more doors to deepen the doctrine facet of the game.

Ok again thanks. I suppose there are some reading this wondering what this is about, but hey I was there and care about it. Doctrine presents some challenges of course but is necessary for proper study of the period. So, AI consideration of NATO forces at platoon level and Soviet forces at the company level is a good start. Let's see how players deal with the subtle differences. [;)]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Ok thanks. Formation spacing is one thing, but Cap'n Darwin is aware of the Assault game and how TOCs and operations points were implemented - Bn TOCs for NATO and Regt TOCs for Warsaw Pact. Soviets leveraged the shortage of ops points with Co and Bn battle drills where those units would all perform the same actions. NATO had more opportunity for initiative at the unit level. This worked really well! So, as you consider AI tweaks please consider the doctrinal differences and make this a great game. [8D]

Cap'n Darwin isn't the only one that is aware of the Assault game system. However, what you are talking about is not AI bu command and control. The AI does make nationality differentiation for command and control differences.

I too served in NATO. I too was curious how things would have turned out and we have tried to the best of our ability to bring that situation to you as accurately as possible.


Here is an example of the command cycle - turn length. 53 minutes is a long time for a command cycle.

Good Hunting.

MR