HTTR (mini-guide): Tutorial, AAR, tips!

[Tzar007]

From Beery:

I understand Elmo you are only asking for a option toggle, I just don't see how it benefits FoW.

Personally, I'm for anything that reduces unrealistic levels of knowledge that no real commander would have. If that means getting rid of all screen representations of VP levels, I'm 100% for that. No real commander had such cheats, so if this game is to present as realistic a simulation as possible given the medium, why should we? These things only make it easier for the player to beat the AI, and they give online players advantages that real commanders simply didn't have, and that aren't necessary for play. These features only serve to encourage unrealistic play styles and turn what is supposed to be a simulation of realities of battle into a mere tactical game with a war theme.

Having never seen the game system I really can't comment on specifics, but if this game is to present a realistic simulation, it simply should have options that enable the player to play with only the level of detail that the actual participants had. The computer should be a tool for restricting knowledge and giving the player the same decisions that real commanders faced. Thus when a VP location is lost, players should not know that unless their soldiers can see the enemy take that location. Similarly, if a bridge is set to blow, the player trying to take the bridge should not know that there are explosives on it unless his troops can see them, and the player should have no idea of whether it has failed to blow until his troops are in a position to confirm that. Anything else is a cheat.

As for gauges of enemy strength loss - no commander should ever EVER know that. These kinds of things are simply cheats to allow players to more easily mould their strategy. Such flexibility was simply not available to real commanders, and thus such 'features' should NEVER be in what is marketed a realistic battle simulation.

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


Another thing that seems to be being forgotten here is that the vast majority of players do not play online (online players are generally only about 5% of the total player community). The players of the single player game need every disadvantage they can get since AI just isn't capable of posing as much of a threat as a real human opponent. Enhancements to fog of war are only a formality in online play (and that tends to be why online players don't require them) since, generally speaking, online players are in it more for the challenge of beating a human opponent than for the history lesson such simulations can give. But for the player whose opponent must be the AI, such features are essential both for playability and for historical accuracy.

Let me put it this way - the more unrealistic advantages players have, the less the game is a simulation. Personally when I play a wargame my main consideration is how realistic a portrayal of the historical battle the game will give. If I'm presented with a VP area that turns red (or shows up in some other way) when the opponent enters it, even when my soldiers are in no position to see it, then that's as unrealistic to me as having machineguns that never run out of bullets and that can shoot through 6 feet of concrete. Both things allow me to do things that no real combatant could do. There are lots of sci-fi games I can play that don't claim to be realistic, and if I just want the challenge of playing a combat game online I can play any of those. But a historically-based wargame is supposed to give me more than that.

[Tzar007]

From Keke:

Having never seen the game system I really can't comment on specifics, but if this game is to present a realistic simulation, it simply should have options that enable the player to play with only the level of detail that the actual participants had.

I'd say with that kind of design philosophy one would not be happy until players are sent back to the '40s with a time-machine to command the actual troops...

Maybe then one would appreciate those tea-breaks more...

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


What I'm talking about is realISM, not realITY. A simulation demands realism. Realism isn't a dirty word, and you don't need to go back in time to achieve it. You just need to determine what a simulation needs to cut out (in terms of the omniscient nonsense that wargames have given us for the last 20 years) in order to give the player the best appreciation of the decisions that a commander would face. If you prefer games like Command and Conquer that give players a hyped-up ultra-violent version of what war would be if humans had no sense of self-preservation, those games exist for you. To me they're tedious because they are too far-fetched for my taste.

This is a wargame based on a WW2 historical battle. As such it should not present us with a command perspective that represents a 21st century commander's knowledge of the battlefield. There were no drone aircraft flying over Arnhem, giving pin-point positions of enemy troops, and there were no electronic aids giving the commander news from the front the second it happened. I'm fed up with being told by game developers that I'm getting an ultra-realistic simulation of WW2 combat only to find out that the 'simulation' gives me WW2 troops but a command and control system that most armies in the year 2003 don't have access to. How am I supposed to be faced with the problems of a WW2 commander when I am forced to use tools that only the most modern computerized military has? It's ludicrous to call such a game a 'simulation'.

Computer wargames are still using ludicrously outdated board wargame technology which gives the player far too much information. It was originally done this way because you simply can't hide that stuff on a board. But here we are, well into the computer age, and most 'serious' computer wargames are still using hexes, even when board wargames have generally evolved to area movement. I mean it's ridiculous that our computer technology is so much more advanced than board wargames, but board wargames are still far more advanced than their computer contemporaries because they are evolving while computer games are still so obsessed with graphics that they're struggling to catch up to 20 year-old boardgame innovations.

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


Having said all that, I recognise that HTTR represents an evolutionary step in terms of its movement rules (i.e. no hexes), its way of removing the micromanagement flaws inherent in turn-based games, and its order delay system, but if it's still giving the player real time VP and enemy strength data, it is failing to give players what it's supposedly created for - a realistic WW2 commander's perspective leading to a realistic simulation of WW2 battle. If you're playing a game where there is no information lag from the front, second-by second knowledge of enemy movements and force strengths, and instant communication between elements of your command structure, I'm sorry, but you're not playing a WW2 wargame. You are playing a simulation of war in the 21st century fought by WW2 infantry. I'm not involved in this hobby to play fantasy wargames, and I'm sick to death of being expected to cheer every time a new wargame system comes along that's filled with the same old flaws. It's about time that game developers developed some vision and created something that deserves the title 'historical battle simulation'. Computers are easily able to do all the things necessary to get us there. Hiding information from players is what computers do best. Cardboard, counters, and rulebooks can't hide that information from the players, but computers can. So why on Earth is it that when it comes to computer wargames, developers are still giving us information that no real commander had access to, simply because that's the information that board wargames are forced, by virtue of their physical limitations, to give?

[Tzar007]

From Arjuna:


Hey Beery. We've got your point. I believe we share a similar view on realism. Can I suggest that before we take this any further you play HTTR. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Sure there will be aspects that don't meet your ideal. But I think you will find HTTR delivers more realism than any other operational level wargame to date.

Please keep in mind that we are evolving and refining the system with each game released. We'll be starting up some discussion threads after release in which you are warmly invited to contribute your ideas on how we can develop the game system.

Once again thanks for your discussion.

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


Okay, sorry. But sometimes I get so disappointed when I see my fellow gamers clinging to outmoded ways of doing things simply because that's what they're used to, and arguing vociferously against innovation. This hobby (by which I mean that of the computer wargame) desperately needs to evolve beyond the limits of the cardboard and counters technology that preceded it. I've been playing computer wargames for 23 years (I'll never forget my Intellivision - classic), and it never fails to frustrate me when I see computer wargames evolving so darned slowly when the possibilities for getting beyond the 2D 'you see everything, no fog of war' boardgame format are almost infinite.

That's all I'll say for now on this topic. I'm sure you'll be hearing from me after Monday when the first thing I'm gonna do is go out and buy this game. I'm sure I won't be disappointed, but that doesn't mean I won't be critical. No one ever helped a game system improve by endlessly praising it.

[Tzar007]

From Arjuna:

No one ever helped a game system improve by endlessly praising it.

That must be a "Beeryism", heh! [:D]

[Tzar007]

From Beery:

That must be a "Beeryism", heh! [:D]

Hehe, I guess it is. I sincerely wish you folks well with this game. I think Panther have chosen a great distributor in Matrix games - they seem able to get their games onto the shelves wherever I go in search of computer games. The last wargame I saw with this visionary level of innovation was a computer simulation of Waterloo which was published about 10 or 15 years ago (it had no hexes, order delay, and your information as commander depended on your distance from any unit - as a command simulator it was way ahead of its time), but that game seemed to be poorly marketed here in the US and it just didn't get the exposure that it deserved. I played it endlessly though, until I figured out the AI and, sadly, had to give it up. I don't suppose anyone here remembers it?

[Tzar007]

From Golf33:

...the player should have no idea of whether it has failed to blow until his troops are in a position to confirm that.

There is no attempt to blow bridges until the force assigned to deny the crossing is under attack, so by the time the enemy is trying to drop a bridge you have troops close enough to see what is going on anyway.

Oddly enough the information on crossing point status was added because a lot of players of RDOA asked for it [:)]

As for gauges of enemy strength loss - no commander should ever EVER know that. These kinds of things are simply cheats to allow players to more easily mould their strategy. Such flexibility was simply not available to real commanders, and thus such 'features' should NEVER be in what is marketed a realistic battle simulation.

As far as casualties inflicted on the enemy, AA doesn't give you anything a real commander wouldn't have access to. Your impression of enemy strength comes from intel reports that are based solely on observations from your units and are usually realistically inaccurate [:)]

The 'enemy destroyed' objective is a lot less informative than you'd think - it is very indirect and does not tell you how many men/vehicles/guns the enemy has lost, and absolutely doesn't tell you how many he has left or how many he had to start with. The player also has no way of knowing if it reflects the total amount of the enemy force destroyed or just some smaller (or even larger) proportion - the scenario designer sets the number of points for attrition, and the percentage of the enemy force to be destroyed to achieve that. All the player sees is the number of points he has and the number he could gain; he doesn't see the percentage of casualties he has to inflict to do so. I could set it so the player saw full attrition points for destroying as little as 1% of the enemy force; it's not even limited to a maximum of 100% casualties, I could set it so the player could only get half the attrition points apparently on offer, even by destroying every enemy unit. If you play using the attrition objective to gauge enemy losses, you are setting yourself up for some nasty surprises!

It's also not present in every scenario, in many cases the geographic objectives are the only thing going.

Adjudicating victory and defeat in wargames (in real battles too for that matter) is a whole philosophical area in itself, with all sorts of different considerations and approaches. There are lots of different ways to do it and most of them are probably equally valid. HTTR represents one way of doing things; it's not really something that can be discussed in great detail until you've played the game a bit and seen how this approach works in practice.

Cheers
33

[Tzar007]

From Golf33:

if it's still giving the player real time VP and enemy strength data

You get real-time VP data for yourself and an approximation of the difference between yours and the enemy's.

You never get precise data on enemy strength until the game ends and you get to see the final dispositions. During the game you get intel reports based on your units' sightings that are frequently inaccurate and degrade heavily with age.

second-by second knowledge of enemy movements and force strengths, and instant communication between elements of your command structure

Not in this one mate! You do get sighting reports as soon as your units make contact, but they are very inaccurate in terms of type, strength and even location, and they only get updated as and when your units are in position to maintain contact and find out more information. This is no different from the enemy situation maps I've seen in artillery command posts, where you mark down contacts and the time last observed on a talc sheet using a red marker. If you make your plans based on the older contacts, you can expect to be a few hours behind the battle very quickly.

As Dave says, I think when you've had the chance to play HTTR a bit you'll find most of your desires are already well implemented in the game. I've had the embarrassing experience of the AI opponent, who I thought I'd battered into submission and driven off to the south, move around my flank and drive a brigade into the gap in my defences on the eastern flank. I issued orders to smash the penetration but the scenario ended before my troops got moving; instead of the decisive victory I was expecting, I got a marginal and nearly had to settle for a draw. This despite an overwhelming superiority at this point of something like 4:1 overall; the AI simply concentrated where I was not, and made me pay the price of not watching my flanks.

The main reason it was embarrassing, was because it was my scenario that I'd just finished writing and was playtesting for the first time! I knew exactly what the enemy had, and where and when it would arrive on the battlefield; I knew exactly what the enemy objectives were and how they would be prioritized; and I still got totally caught off-balance by an opponent who showed me what I expected to see, while actually doing something quite different. Anyone else playing that game would not know the enemy's starting strength, what reinforcements he had coming, or where and when they would arrive. He would not even know what objectives the enemy had.

Regards
33

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


Okay, I know I promised to be quiet from here on, but this is some good info:

There is no attempt to blow bridges until the force assigned to deny the crossing is under attack, so by the time the enemy is trying to drop a bridge you have troops close enough to see what is going on anyway.

Good to know. This is not the impression I got from previous posts. It's still 'iffy' to know that an attempt to blow a bridge failed, and it definitely takes away from the tension of a crossing, but I guess I might be able to live with it given the above considerations. But I'll have to see it in action to get a real idea of whether it's within reasonable limits of realism or not.

Oddly enough the information on crossing point status was added because a lot of players of RDOA asked for it

It will never surprise me that many players want more information than they technically should have - it's human nature given today's culture of instant gratification, but it's important for the integrity of the simulation that such things are only offered as an option, and let those of us who want a realistic simulation have that option too.

Your impression of enemy strength comes from intel reports that are based solely on observations from your units and are usually realistically inaccurate...

The 'enemy destroyed' objective is a lot less informative than you'd think - it is very indirect and does not tell you how many men/vehicles/guns the enemy has lost, and absolutely doesn't tell you how many he has left or how many he had to start with...

All good things to know. Earlier posts most definitely gave me a different (and frightening) impression.

[Tzar007]

From Keke:

I've been playing computer wargames for 23 years (I'll never forget my Intellivision - classic), and it never fails to frustrate me when I see computer wargames evolving so darned slowly when the possibilities for getting beyond the 2D 'you see everything, no fog of war' boardgame format are almost infinite.

Now could you tell me which recent operational level wargames have no fog of war?

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


I don't think I ever said that any recent computer wargames have no fog of war (the quote you use is a generalization and refers to a boardgame format, not an actual computer game). My point was that many (if not all) recent computer wargames have unrealistically few concessions to fog of war. If you read my posts it's hard to get the wrong impression.

Please don't put words in my mouth. It makes you look like a flamer or a troll (and the fact that you're resurrecting this subject after we've all agreed to drop it makes you look even more like a troll). If you want to discuss the issue fairly, respond fairly to stuff I've said rather than twisting my words and making up straw men in an attempt to burn them down more easily.

I realise that my style of argument can be seen as very combative, and that it can strike some people as arrogant, but I'm trying to get at the truth and I'm trying to put forward strong arguments. This is just the style I've developed and it's not something I can just turn off. It's not meant to be disrespectful.

[Tzar007]

From Keke:


I apologize if I appeared trollish, but your posts seemed a little bit weird to me, when you actually had never seen the game system in question.

[Tzar007]

From Beery:


No need to apologise. For some reason my writing style tends to get on peoples' nerves. I don't know how to prevent it without watering down the force of my arguments (which is something that I just can't do in good conscience). I've tried various methods - one time I tried putting in lots of smiley faces, but people REALLY hated that.

I had seen descriptions of the game, and those descriptions were leading me to an understanding of what the product was in terms of certain features. While it's true that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, it's still possible to get a hint of the flavour by the aromas that emanate from the kitchen.

As it happens, it seems that the earlier descriptions I read largely gave me the wrong impression. But there are some areas that I still have qualms about. But I'm willing to reserve judgment until after I've given the game a good workout on my computer.

[MarkShot]

Ugo,

I know I said thank you already, but I just wanted to say it once again. You more than anyone made this recovery possible!

[MarkShot]

I see that page views are going up on my tips thread quite a bit faster than this one.

Well, I just wanted to remind you folks that there is a lot of discourse on game tips in this thread too, but disguised as an AAR.

[MarkShot]

--- Public service announcement ---

See first post of this thread in green text.

[MarkShot]

--- Public service announcement ---

See first post of this thread in green text - Battle Planning Checklist.