Matrix Games Forums

Well obviously the whole theme of the Battle of the Bulge and Market Garden is 'oh god, my troops aren't attacking as fast as they need to and the whole plan is falling behind schedule', so I expect to have this problem.

The point is that the casualty issue isn't important because I care about getting the historical number of casualties per se, it's important because it means that in particular small units can have a horribly disproportionate effect on an operation's timetable by virtue of existing when they should not.

I would be happy with a solution that fixed the second problem even if it didn't manage to get casualties to a historic level.


e: ideally of course casualties are inflicted at historic rates and the emergent effect of that is that attacks proceed at the correct rate, but perfection sometimes isn't possible.

Ah. Entiendo! It's true that all the scenarios are a mad rush and leave less time than desired for fine tuning. But maybe the latest casualty tweak will change that a little, in that those tiny units won't hold things up as much.

No rest reminds me of a truism I discovered on the job.

When everything's defined as a crisis nothing is a "crisis."

As Jim Morrison said: When all else fails, we can whip the horse's eyes . . .

Given your admitted preference for smaller scenarios (and I assume shorter duration) pushing the troops to the limit makes sense.

Over longer periods of time, makes more sense for the commander to allow units some respite from the battle to address morale and cohesion over the term.

Jim I do like long duration scenarios actually..but smaller amount of units, to be honest I like my scenarios no less than 2 to 3 days.

I like you Wodin usually never play the large scenarios. Case Blue, WTP, Combat command, ect, ect, I just cant wrap my head around keeping a plan together with hundreds of units on the map and lose my taste for moving all those units sooner or later.Probably why tactical is my favorite scale. One of the reasons i really like this series is that i can play the larger unit scenarios. You can issue a few orders higher up the chain and the AI does a very reasonable job, perfect...no.. I micromanage when i have to then reattach. You should give the larger ones a try sometime. HTTR is about the only game i played the big scenarios and i cant wait to pick all these up and give that 10 day monster a go. I played alot of HTTR and have been playing BFTB demo for a few days and there is some much that has been added, i am highly impressed with how far the series has come from the concepts videos , the tutorial videos and all the cool new features, Panther should be commended. In my perfect world, they sign off on the patch and the cota scenarios and bundle it all together and my income tax refund comes the next day[:D]

I too prefer the larger scenarios - they're the ones that allow for creativity and variation.

In a 2 day scenario there's typically only one valid plan given the starting positions and objectives.

The scenarios I love in this game are the huge ones. You need to get into it by treating each individual area of battle or operations as something like a separate, individual, smaller battle, due as much attention from you as if it were all you were playing (as if each separate area were a separate smaller scenario). They take ages, of course. You need to mostly run them on slowest settings to keep up. But it's like playing several smaller scenarios all at once, but with scope - as Alch says - for tactical variation and creative planning. My favourites are From the Meuse to the Rhine, Spearhead v Reich (14 days) and - from COTA - the big Centaurs battle between Greeks and Italians (I think that one is 14 days or so too). So, playing Mass-Rhein is just like playing the two smaller scenarios RDOA and AAON, but with the possibility of tactics between the two areas. Though, in fact, RDOA and AAON are both of themselves pretty huge, and can be broken down into about 3 separate areas of attention, each.

Mr P I thought you said the other day you like the smaller unit scale more..hmmm...looks like I'm in a minority which doesn't bode ell for me and the future of playing CO..if the next games are all massive scenarios I prob wont be buying.

Again I like long lasting scenarios but I find scenarios with loads of units end up just looking a jumbled mess and you can't really appreciate the game in action as even watching an attack go in you lose the formation fan out etc etc due to all the other units milling around.

I do play the bigger scenarios like lots of mini scenarios at the same time...but that to me shows my inability to plan whole scale timed assaults across the front. Also again I end up not getting as immersed as I would be. COTA's airborne scenarios lasting three or four days where my all time favourite ones.

I will repeat though I'm NOT keen on quick scenarios that last one or two days..they just don't last long enough. I disagree that low unit density scenarios only give the option for one plan though.

I do play the large ones though..I just don't enjoy them as much as the lower unit density ones. Maybe it's BFTB scenarios in particular. Horrible terrain and the restriction of the engine for dismounted troops and usually an Arty slugfest.

I'm also into details..being m,mainly a tactical player..I love it when scenarios go to the effort of putting in the correct commanders name and unit history, these details are much more likely to be looked at and also add to the immersion on the lower unit density scenarios. I also like to monitor in detail at times coy's and how they are doing..again much easier to keep track off with lower unity density. The high unit density they just become counters rather than units full of men and equipment. Now if we get more detailed radio feedback\sitreps and on the fly AAR's for individual units in detail and one day leader casualties and replacements or they come back after being wounded for a couple od days I'd start to find the bigger scenarios as immersive as the smaller ones.

PS: Having a poxy 19inch screen really doesn't help either...maybe if I had a lovely 24inch or bigger it would make a difference with regards to high unit count scenarios. It's this sort of problem I have with wargames and a small screen that leaves me baffled that people want wargames on tablets!!

I like both, really. Big and small. Really looking forward to the 'tactical' iteration of BFTB (LOTB, is it?) Like you, Wodin, I would also love a Stalingrad type tactical iteration (city fighting), with this engnie, if it could ever work. I'm very curious to see if LOTB works with the engine.

I have most played Manhay and Hofen, in fact. Too many times to admit to. But that's only because they're quick. I do prefer getting lost in the bigger ones, it's just a more daunting prospect. Every time I start again with Maas-Rhein, for example, it's the same hour of detailed playing, laboriously giving orders as the drops come in. That can get a bit tedious, and if you run the thing properly I reckon it would take about forty hours of solid play to complete Maas-Rhein on slow setting, paying attention. Maybe more. Once XXX Corps arrive my processor generally will run it at about a quarter reality on slowest setting - ie a minute in game every fifteen seconds or so. That's a tall order.

I have a decent size screen. It's true that on my 12' laptop it's a bit cramping.

This raises a question about game mechanics.

When a static unit routs, does it take the time to, in effect, limber the emplaced equipment and move it along with the personnel fleeing for their lives?

If that were the case, it would explain why a static unit doesn't react as quickly under rout conditions as mechanized or foot units.

In my history studies, when I get to wars as the exclamation points of historical change, I tend to focus first on the strategic positions of the opponents, their requirements to win a war, and the campaigns, decisive battles in those campaigns toward the war's conclusion. As part of the study of the campaigns, I focus on the the generals who conduct the campaigns / battles.

Leads toward me paying attention to the larger scenarios when I want to mimic the command and control dynamics those generals faced.

In the manual it states that static units stand and fight until they surrender or are destroyed. I was not aware they even do rout...

They do rout but they rout "in place" - ie they cower in their fox holes.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

They do rout but they rout "in place" - ie they cower in their fox holes.

That's basically why static units are so infuriating under the release version - the low casualty rate means they effectively become unshakable fanatics.

Isn't a more realistic behaviour that when they rout the unit discards the heavy weapons that can't be limbered and everyone just runs for it with what they can carry?

If they're so suppressed they cower in fox holes to rout, they aren't firing their weapons.

If they aren't firing their weapons, they aren't inflicting casualties on your troops.

As far as I've observed once the static units 'rout' my units just pass straight over, as if it weren't there. If my units stay on top of it then usually it surrenders shortly afterwards. Happens often with static units guarding bridges in HTTR scenarios.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

As far as I've observed once the static units 'rout' my units just pass straight over, as if it weren't there. If my units stay on top of it then usually it surrenders shortly afterwards. Happens often with static units guarding bridges in HTTR scenarios.

That sounds like a nice "overrun" move/attack, that I´d wish for seeing not just on static units. In those cases, where an armored unit moves "through" a neutralized (routing in place/cowering) enemy unit, that anyway can´t deal with the armor for lack of any AT weaponry. The armor unit then should keep moving on, instead of shooting and let the cowering unit to be dealt with by following infantry.

That would be a big step forward, with regard to Blitzkrieg tactics (LOTB and Chir) and in general.[8D]

On Peiper's race for the Meuse, I have gotten a LOT of the overruns you referred to... sometimes so much so that I have had to direct infantry specifically to mop up, in order to keep the LOC cleared behind panzer units that still blitz effectively a'la '40-'41. The only thing I have really played with in this, is jumping up some of the unit stats in a few of the German units..morale, training, and determination.

The default behaviour for moving units is to ignore routers. There is a chance they may fire at them but by and larege they don't react to them.

In any event I am in the process of compiling a new build. Hopefully I will get this out to Matri later tonight or early tomorrow. Probably too late for them to do anything this week. But they should be able to release a public beta next week. This will have the combat, reaction and formation overhauls. So how about leaving discussion of build 256 combat and reaction behaviour till after then.

Thanks Dave.. you are really on top of things sir.. Thank you for supporting your product so well... here is one long term customer you have earned by that now.