COMMAND OPS : LEGENDS OF THE BLITZKRIEG - An Introduction

[wodin]

OK cool..still love to see some AAR's hint hint..

[JudgeDredd]

Well, I have done some in the past. They're at Wargamer and Grogheads though...I wasn't too happy about the TAL one anyways - so I'll try and get one done for each...get me back to playing them (been concentrating on modelling (no - not me - model aircraft!))...I've been looking for a reaosn to crack the boxes open again.

When I've done, I'll stick them in General Discussion

[wodin]

Thanks mate..as your aware both those sites are no go areas for me. So posting them here would be great.

[JudgeDredd]

I only mentioned them because I wasn't sure if you were still able to read - just not post. But it's no problem.

I could copy them and paste them here, but I'd kind of like to redo them anyway.

[wodin]

OK mate..no I don't go there full stop..rather have nothing todo with them. I've absolutely got zero interest in what many on there have to say (yourself excluded from that by the way). Anyway thats another story and enough has been said on it I think.

Anyway look forward to the new AAR's. Have fun and Happy Hunting.

[Phoenix100]

What's the ETA on LOTB? Can't wait for it, assuming it works. I was playing through a quick battle in CMBFI today and thinking how silly it was. All those units with limited initiative. Don't need the 3d graphics (I've got an imagination), but do need an ability to command realistically, to issue more general orders and have the units interpret them (as happens in CO, and, I hope, as will happen in the tactical iteration) and have some ability to make choices in the interpretation. Of course, if you're abstracted to a little counter graphic then your imagination HAS TO fill in what might have happened in an engagement (wherase, in CMBFI I can SEE the tank just sitting there, doing bugger all instead of driving out and engaging the enemy armour - which it can't do, because its order was to sit there, given in the last orders phase and unalterable until the next), but that just means we should stick to that level of abstraction, if the AI development can't keep pace with the graphics. Anyway. What IS the ETA on this game?

[wodin]

Not sure why anyone would play CM QB games..scenarios are where it's at against the AI..it's an amazing game I have to disagree with you.

Anyway your having a laugh I think expecting an ETA..it's using the new east front engine features for starters..so it's a very very long way off. We haven't had the last patch for the old engine yet or the last expansion.

Would be surprised if where not talking at least a year away.

As for a perfect tactical wargame..I have one in my head which is very similar to this but uses instead of counters actual unit footprint which is dynamic..as I mentioned somewhere else. You know all those battle maps we've looked at where someone has drawn on roughly where the formation is? Well imagine that animated as a game..You give an order to the coy formation to send out the recon platoon and click the area ahead you wnat covered..you would see three circles (squads) break off the the oval formation footprint (lets say it looked Oval at the time) and move out ahead the circles may morph into elongated ovals as the squad opens up into line formation to sweep the area then they either wait at the designated area and the main coy moves up and the three squads (ovals) merge back into the footprint. So no longer do you have an abrstact counter with an even more abstract foot print like CO but you actually see the area the unit covers.

[Phoenix100]

We seem to have the same conversation, in circles....or conversations....

I'm fine with counters, myself.

I'm not talking about the enemy AI in CM (and, again, sadly, I think I've heard us having this conversation before...), but the complete lack of subordinate AI (regardless of whether you're in the scenarios or QBs). You command as the unit commander of each and every unit (by which I mean, each and every unit does next to zip unless you tell it to). Fair enough, I'm happy with that (it's a game, after all, and that's the abstraction...), providing I can get all the info that each and every unit commander would have. But that can't be modelled, of course, because I can't be in 35 to 50 places, say, at the same time. I can play in turn-based mode and run the film endless times to see what happened to each and every unit, after the fact (it's not the same as being there, but it would do), but that means I have to wait a minute before being able to change things for each and every unit (and a minute can be a very long time in combat, the diff between winning or losing, very easily, as, for instance - as happened today - that Tiger rolls up to the building and starts pouring in fire and I have to wait a minute before I can move my stalled bazooka squad into a firing position from behind their wall only fifteen feet away - which they do quite nicely, and quite nicely take out the tank, when I tell them to, a minute later, but by then 18 dead and 15 wounded....etc etc). What is needed is subordinate AI such as CO uses. I've said all this before. Which is why I really look forward to the tactical iteration....

It's a pretty game, CM, I'll give you that.

[Rtwfreak]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

We seem to have the same conversation, in circles....or conversations....

I'm fine with counters, myself.

I'm not talking about the enemy AI in CM (and, again, sadly, I think I've heard us having this conversation before...), but the complete lack of subordinate AI (regardless of whether you're in the scenarios or QBs). You command as the unit commander of each and every unit (by which I mean, each and every unit does next to zip unless you tell it to). Fair enough, I'm happy with that (it's a game, after all, and that's the abstraction...), providing I can get all the info that each and every unit commander would have. But that can't be modelled, of course, because I can't be in 35 to 50 places, say, at the same time. I can play in turn-based mode and run the film endless times to see what happened to each and every unit, after the fact (it's not the same as being there, but it would do), but that means I have to wait a minute before being able to change things for each and every unit (and a minute can be a very long time in combat, the diff between winning or losing, very easily, as, for instance - as happened today - that Tiger rolls up to the building and starts pouring in fire and I have to wait a minute before I can move my stalled bazooka squad into a firing position from behind their wall only fifteen feet away - which they do quite nicely, and quite nicely take out the tank, when I tell them to, a minute later, but by then 18 dead and 15 wounded....etc etc). What is needed is subordinate AI such as CO uses. I've said all this before. Which is why I really look forward to the tactical iteration....

It's a pretty game, CM, I'll give you that.

But, the sad thing is in its infancy it won't have the 3d graphics of CMxx which is a big draw to that game right now. I do agree with you though having to wait that minute (I always felt there should have been more options like in Panzer Command:Osfront) does make a difference in life and death and winning or losing many times. Of course the TAC ai would respond somewhat when it was damaged and rout or goto ground but never really adjust to the situation like CO does.

This type of game though could become the WW2 model of Norbsofts Gettysburg/Antietam etc. I've always wanted more CO games that went tactical in other eras of wars as I've never been much of a fan of divisional or army level of play. Ever since minature army men in my youth and lots of Avalon Hill Squad Leader games and X-Com I've always enjoyed those types of war depictions. Lots more immersion and fun when you can play an individual soldier or even a squad/platoon of them.

BTW is this a MOD for BFTB or a new game that will be a standalone of its own?

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak
BTW is this a MOD for BFTB or a new game that will be a standalone of its own?

We haven't made that decision yet but most likely a standalone game in its own right.

[nicwb]

Either way it looks like being a definite purchase for me.

[wodin]

Bill,

How will the game handle City fighting? No many games do it well. Lets say I was to make a Stalingrad scenario of the pioneer attack on Barrikady..would it work well?

[wodin]

@Phoenix..where you talking to me about going around in circles? I'm confused? Hope I haven't upset you.

@RTWfreak..are you taking about this game having 3d graphics? I don't feel it would work to be honest. First off it would be like a totally different game, second we have CMx2 anyway or AP OS. I'm really looking forward to a counter based squad game to be honest. Panthers games should be counters, and stay counters. Plenty of 3D graphic games from your arcade like Company of Heroes and Men at War to CMBx2 and Achtung Panzer, oh yes and Close Combat which has a new engine coming out soon. I have no issue with 3D graphics for squad level games if all the soldiers and tanks are shown etc, however I can also easily visualise that size unit when it's a counter, and sometimes imagination is much better than fancy 3D graphics. I struggle with immersion at higher scale wargames say above company as I can't visualise whats going on so much compared to the lower scale games. Though saying that I'm not a fan of seeing a Tank Sprite to show a platoon of tanks or even a division of tanks..it doesn't help at all for immersion and I think detracts from it seeing a huge tank sprite thats supposed to represent a whole division or something.

Finally when games do go 3D they have to look good. Something I think Conflict of heroes suffers from. Though funny enough I like Battle Academy graphics, it fits the game. However if your making a more hardcore wargame you either give it a damn good 3D engine or don't bother and keep the counters. CMx2 is the best looking game, but once modded it looks good enough, much prefer it over the old abstract 3man inf units.

[Phoenix100]

Not upset. Not at all. No. Just meant we've had this conversation before (of course).

[wodin]

Ok cool..still abit at a loss at what we are going round in circles about though..you mean how slow the patches are? I thought you were talking to Rtwfreak about the graphics... Anyway not to worry.

[Phoenix100]

Wodin. The conversation about icons/counters and 3d or 2d - that goes round in circles, keeps coming back, no?

On a different note - what do you think - you Wodin - of APOS? Aside from your probs patching it, you reckon it's worth putting more effort in to learn the awful interface and how to orientate oneself on the map? I mean, after you've learned properly how to play it, is the enemy AI (and the friendly AI) any use at all? I ask because I think you play it, no? I have it, fully patched (the last patch made it look much better, I thought) but can't ever ger far enough to really test the AI, I think. Though you might have got that far. Does it mount intelligent attacks, for instance? Do your own troops need exact individual orders before they do anything intelligent? Not for this thread, really (or this part of the forum), but it's AI related, at least. Whilst I'm waiting for the patch and COTA converstions....

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Bill,

How will the game handle City fighting? No many games do it well. Lets say I was to make a Stalingrad scenario of the pioneer attack on Barrikady..would it work well?

Hey Wodin, only just now saw this. Interesting question... at this scale you mean? I haven't really noticed any effects where MOUT is much different than in BFTB. However, I have a few ideas on this front that would require some experimentation. With the smaller movement grid and some creative use of the map layers perhaps something interesting and useful could be created at the tactical scale.

Not a priority for me at the moment though.

Bil

[wodin]

Bil..OK cool, hope you get around to it at some point, if you crack it it's a MAJOR selling point in my eyes.

[z1812]

I understand that the infantry units are at platoon size with some specialist teams. I presume the specialist teams are crew served weapons?

Tanks will be platoons too or single units? I am quite looking forward to this.

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: z1812

I understand that the infantry units are at platoon size with some specialist teams. I presume the specialist teams are crew served weapons?

Correct, HMG teams, mortar teams, some artillery Batteries will also be broken down into sections, depending on doctrine, etc.

Tanks will be platoons too or single units? I am quite looking forward to this.

Tanks will be platoons.

This image shows tank platoons, infantry platoons, HMG platoon broken down into two teams, and I'm surprised nobody has noticed it, a supply point squad for the Infantry Company.

This last bit is still experimental as I am still playing with doctrinal logistics application down to the Company level. For example: armor companies will draw their supply through the battalion depot, infantry companies will draw supply from the battalion depot as well, but the supplies will need to be shuttled to the platoons by the supply point unit.

No promises on whether this organization will be final or not.