Turn based Player admits I was wrong

[miral]

Ok, again apologies for my original rant because I did not do my research. I have now played the first RT game that I enjoy. I mean ENJOY. This game is fascinating. I think there are two main reasons for this. First, the game itself is so intricate and well made. Second, the speed is reasonable; you don't have to be a gerbil on meth to keep up with it. The medium speed is right for me; enough time to consider what to do but not so much that you won't get your bottom shot off if you dither too long.

I've already said how much fun WAR is so let me comment on how it is as a realistic simulation. Now, I've never been in a battle, but then neither had S. Crane when he wrote The Red Badge of Courage. Just so this post doesn't turn into a book I will compare WAR against two historians; Robert Rush, author of the superb Hell in Hurtgen Forest, and the inestimable Clauswitz (yes, I am one of those who think he is still the finest of War scholars and what he said is, in the main, still applicable; it certainly was so in WWII).

In the game we see what Rush points out so well in his book; the extreme fragility of infantry on a WWII battlefield. Yes, I have read many history books and knew that the American infantry in Europe, while composing only some - what? - 5-8% of all US troops in WWII, took about 80-90% of the casualities. And not the Infantry Divisions, the companies that were up front, for much of a Division was artillery and support troops who did not take many causalties. Rush points out that in the Hurtgen the 4th US Inf Div took 300% casualities in 18 days. That's right, 100% causalties every 6 days, and kept on fighting. So much for the theory that the Germans were so brave and the American infantry only occupied land blasted free of the enemy by planes and artillery.

The game WAR makes you understand why the casualties were so awful. You have soldiers exposed to an incredible amount of lethal weaponry with NO defensive armor (def amor is finally making a comeback after several centuries but WWII soldiers had none). Make a wrong move and there goes a whole section, or platoon. WAR would, I think, also be appreciated by Clauswitz, because it simulates so well two things about battle that he hits on again and again. Check my spelling here as I don't read German and dont have Zom Kreiq in front of me but Clauswitz points out that the German word for slaughter is schlact. This is also the German word for a battle. Before Clauswitz was a theoretician and historian he was a combat officer in many bloody battles of the Napoleonic Wars and he knew what he spoke of. The second thing he returns to again and again is the chaos, the uncertainty and the disorientation caused by battle; in large part by the slaughter taking place around you.

All this is simulated excellently well in WAR. Going on too long.

A couple of quibbles. The German AI (always play the Americans) does not use tank/infantry combinations well. The infantry are sent into the open too often and killed. Yes, this locates the targets for the tanks but then there are few GErman inf to occupy objectives. In general the German AI is too protective of its tanks; at some point it needs to risk them, particularly in a desperate attempt like the Battle of the Bulge.

Second, always having 15 units to both sides makes for an artificial arrangement. As Clauswitz also loved to point out, the Defense in intrinsically the much stronger form of war and if the attackers have only the same number of units as the defenders guess who will win most often? This can be ofset to some extent by giving the attackers heavier equipment but it still makes a slightly unhistoric situation.

Enough, I've rambled enough. Again, I was wrong, the game is most excellent. Yes, I have been playing too much to report on it. I hope that more scenarios are put out. Thanks to the designers!

[Andrew Williams]

Very good feedback

thanks!


Anyone have any battles/ops/campaigns they have created and would like to share?

Also look here for a few extras

http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/WaR/WaRmods.html

[sol_invictus]

I absolutely hate realtime games with the exception Of EU and these games. Welcome to the ranks of the converted.

[Southernland]

welcome aboard, and yeah it was quite a revilation 10 odd years ago when I first discovered closecombat sitting on a shelf in my local computer store.  I reasoned it wouldn't be quite as good as it looked on the cover art so held off buying it for a month or so

[squadleader_id]

I was an avid Squadleader and ASL player when I was younger (as you can prolly tell from my nick [;)]).
Gave all that up when CC came out (CC started out as a SL PC conversion but veered in a slightly different direction).
The best thing about the CC series is that the (war)game's so detailed but there's minimal micromanagement for players.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

I was an avid Squadleader and ASL player when I was younger (as you can prolly tell from my nick [;)]).
Gave all that up when CC came out (CC started out as a SL PC conversion but veered in a slightly different direction).
The best thing about the CC series is that the (war)game's so detailed but there's minimal micromanagement for players.

ASL still rulez!!! I'm working on computer version based on ASLSK ruleset...currently working on implementing vehicle rules. I already have infantry and ordnance rules including AI in the game.

[DBeves]

Erm ... you cant leave it at that where when ? any screenshots etc ?

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Erm ... you cant leave it at that where when ? any screenshots etc ?

You can search this forum for "XASL" I have already posted some pictures but I can post more...when I get back from work today. Still need to do vehicles and artillery rules.

[squadleader_id]

XASL? Very interesting!  You can play vs AI?  Nice!
How does it compare to VASL graphically?

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

XASL? Very interesting!  You can play vs AI?  Nice!
How does it compare to VASL graphically?

XASL is written in C++ for Windows 2000/XP/2003 server. Maps are built in Scenario editor dynamically using tiles, like say for example in Talonsoft Campaign Series or HPS Squad Battles. I support true line of sight detection down to pixel level...so there is no special LOS map as you have to do with VASL. XASL is wargame like say HPS Squad battles or steel panther series. Meaning that ASL rules are in XASL, however the player will still need to know ASL rules as I don't explain these due to obvious copyright reasons. VASL doesn't have ASL rules built in so it's totally up to player to enforce the rules. XASL has full fog of war (using ASL rules for Obstacle/Hindrance)...so if your units can't see enemy units due to LOS Obstacle or LOS Hindrance then you won't see those enemy units on the map.

My primary focus is on single play vs AI. At this point I can play a scenario against AI with Infantry and Ordnance rules.

Here is an example of a scenario being played against AI

[Peter Fisla]

Here is another screenshot of The Guards Counterattack...

Currently in my engine here are the max specs per SIDE in a given scenario:

200 MMC/HS/CREW/SMC
50 Support Weapons
50 Ordnance MTR/AT/AA/INF/ART
50 Vehicles

XASL MAP size limit: 12 ASL Maps together

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: miral

A couple of quibbles. The German AI (always play the Americans) does not use tank/infantry combinations well. The infantry are sent into the open too often and killed. Yes, this locates the targets for the tanks but then there are few GErman inf to occupy objectives. In general the German AI is too protective of its tanks; at some point it needs to risk them, particularly in a desperate attempt like the Battle of the Bulge.

Yes, there are limitations on the tactical AI in the Close Combat series. I have been begging for years that they improve the AI but there really hasn't been much improvement. I find that the WaR AI will attack briefly in the beginning but then stop completely to the point idiocy.

For example, the other day I was playing a map where the Americans had to cross a river at one of two points. I defended both crossings but only had infantry and 3 schreks, no armor. The Americans had a total of 8 Shermans, yes eight. In the first few minutes I was able to knock out three tanks near the bridges but after that the AI stopped attacking. It didn't even try to move the other tanks into firing position to pummel the buildings across the river where my infantry were hiding. So, I basically had to wait for 10 minutes until the scenario ended. A half competent human opponent would have smeared my after losing the first two tanks.

ORIGINAL: miral

Second, always having 15 units to both sides makes for an artificial arrangement. As Clauswitz also loved to point out, the Defense in intrinsically the much stronger form of war and if the attackers have only the same number of units as the defenders guess who will win most often? This can be ofset to some extent by giving the attackers heavier equipment but it still makes a slightly unhistoric situation.

Yes, this is an unfortunate thing about WaR. This isn't the case with all of the Close Combat series. In the past some of the games had a point system. You had a set amount of points to spend on available units to complete your force. Very often you could not fill all of your unit slots due to lack of points.

The best game of the series, which I think is usually agreed on by most CC players, is A Bridge Too Far. However, the strategic game portion wasn't as dynamic as WaR's. I think and hope that CCII will be next of the CC series to be made over.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

XASL? Very interesting!  You can play vs AI?  Nice!
How does it compare to VASL graphically?

XASL is written in C++ for Windows 2000/XP/2003 server. Maps are built in Scenario editor dynamically using tiles, like say for example in Talonsoft Campaign Series or HPS Squad Battles. I support true line of sight detection down to pixel level...so there is no special LOS map as you have to do with VASL. XASL is wargame like say HPS Squad battles or steel panther series. Meaning that ASL rules are in XASL, however the player will still need to know ASL rules as I don't explain these due to obvious copyright reasons. VASL doesn't have ASL rules built in so it's totally up to player to enforce the rules. XASL has full fog of war (using ASL rules for Obstacle/Hindrance)...so if your units can't see enemy units due to LOS Obstacle or LOS Hindrance then you won't see those enemy units on the map.

My primary focus is on single play vs AI. At this point I can play a scenario against AI with Infantry and Ordnance rules.

Here is an example of a scenario being played against AI

Er - wow ... looks good - so when you say maps are built dynamically - you mean you can build completely new maps from scratch ?

Are you going to release this game ? I would imagine there would be copyright issues selling this ?

[squadleader_id]

Peter, XASL does look very good! I'm very impressed! [&o]
Same question...are you going to share this or is this project strictly for your private use? [:(]
If you're planning to make it public...I'll have to start dusting off my ASL rulebooks! [;)]

[Peter Fisla]

XASL is a labor of love and once done will be offered for free...since I don't have license from Hasbro. And if Hasbro will even object to that then of course I will not release to public....however since I'm doing this for free I don't see why there should be a problem.

Regarding maps:

1) You can create your own maps from scratch, tile by tile...

2) you can also import map templates into scenario editor (like say let's load ASP MAP 20) and then modify it further.

See the attached image (in the post below this one), you can import ASL MAP 20 and then I modified a stone building into stone rubble as well wood rubble, added Debris on the road (terrain item from Red Barricades) as well as added shell holes.

What I mean also by dynamic maps is that (maybe not the best term) is that once your are done with your map line of sight information is also part of the map so no further processing is necessary for LOS and Fog of war to work.

I have already few ASL maps templates: (see the attached image)


(PS the ones marked with yellow marker still need to be created)...please note though that not all ASL terrain is present on the maps. There are no walls/hedges and other things that are not part of the ASL starter kit series. However I did add: hell holes, rubble, lumberyard, crag, debris and trench.

[Peter Fisla]

Here is an example of modified ASL map 20 as mentioned above...

[rmielech]

ORIGINAL:
And if Hasbro will even object to that then of course I will not release to public....however since I'm doing this for free I don't see why there should be a problem.

Talk about leading with your chin. Free or not, it's very possible they can have a BIG problem with it. Maybe you'll slip under the radar screen and maybe not, but you are rolling the dice if you put it out there for others. I hope you do that, but be aware of the potential issues. And if it is available to the public, I suggest anybody with an interest grab it quick just in case.

[sabre100]

I am a TBS wargame player as well and although will on rare occasion play a RTS type game although I  think they are silly clickfest competition and too tedious for any person to truly enjoy them however I took the plunge and purchased this game as battle of the bulge was one of my favorite WW2 Battles and all I can say is I have been missing out this is really one good and fun game and nothing like a true RTS... Nice job to those involved I need to learn this one as it is very fun to play.

[noname]

Thanks Miral, I going to buy the game.

[Jorm]

Peter,

in Case i missed it are you making xASL available for download now ?

This looks great, i purchased most of the ASL box sets many years ago and didnt get much use out of them as opponents for paper wargames are very rare.

outstanding effort

cheers
Paul