A question about scenarios...

[Major SNAFU_M]

I am trying to pick my words carefully as I don't want to be flamed.

I am a long-time TOAW addict, but I have watched this series for a good while.

I decided (again) to consider purchasing COTA , especially in light on the BftB coming up soon.

I know from talking to people how much they love the game system and how excellent they think the AI is.

So I was shocked, really shocked, when I saw how seemingly inactive this forum is and how few user made scenarios there I have been able to find for COTA. I understand that forums slow down after a time - but then one would expect to see the pages of past threads that one could search through. There appears to be just two pages of threads for COTA. Please keep in mind that I am looking at this through the eyes of someone used to seeing the large number of user scenarios for my two current favorites TOAW and John Tillers Campaign series.

So I am posting this in the sincere hope that there is a part of the COTA community that I have not discovered where there is an active forum and an scenario database.

Again, I mean nothing against COTA, I am truly hoping that I have been completely clueless and missed finding something.

Thanks,

[TinyPirate]

I blame the ugliness of the Matrix forums (and how messy they are to navigate from the master list), how poor the Matrix web pages are and also how poor Matrix are at promoting and competitively pricing their games. Those who were going to buy it did so in the first few weeks/months and I don't know how the buzz can be sustained with this sort of background.

It's still a cool game though and there are enough scenarios to keep folks happy

[simovitch]

There are actually 24 pages of posts if you go to "all posts". 2 pages in the last year is all.

The new format for the Matrix forums has caused me to miss posts on several occasions. It should be just a matter of getting used to it again, but I hope it saved someone some money because it sure was a step backward.

Scenarios are a challenge if you are making them from scratch, and the learning curve combined with an avant garde system keeps people away I think. Another factor is Panther's reputation for historical accuracy sets the curve a little high.

The Official COTA website has some cool stuff, and I know COTA is discussed on several other gaming sites, but the main discussions are here on Matrix.

[Lieste]

From much play of the earlier title (the pre-matrix RDOA), there is plenty of replay value even in the short quick scenarios (Raid on Renkum was a favourite for a quick but full-ish) experience.

A brigade/Rgt sized action played through in only a few hours, but I never got the same flow of the battle twice, due to changes in AI decisions, my timings and orders, and the battlefield performance of the units when push-comes-to-shove.

Like CC, there is an AI layer on top of the player commands, but unlike CC, the strategic AI is reasonably competant (and was so even in 1999? when it was released first). Unlike CC, this series never got properly promoted, falling in the minds of the reviewers and marketing men as a 'RTS' game without the pretty little men with guns... This obviously didn't impress the RTS crowds, or the historians/wargames who like realism, and quite rightly didn't find it in the RTS of the period.
What Airbourne Assault/Command Ops is of course is a simulation of the OODA cycle, running in continous time. OOB, troop capabilities and restrictions are as much as possible as close to what a real officer might expect - even though this is a brigade/division/corps level command simulation the individual combats taking place as units move near each other are restricted by Line of sight, posture, rates of fire, ammunition supply, hit probabilities, armour penetration, and armour protection offered - per facing - by armoured units.



I've only sat through two scenarios in COTA (on a friend's machine & just under a year ago), and if anything I think the replay value of any one scenario is better. Currently COTA is at the top of my, "when I have some spare cash" pile, with BFTB looking likely to displace it to second place.

The only other 'game software' I have recently received and for which I test is Steelbeasts Pro PE, which shares COTA's cachet of being licensed for the Australian DOD.


Making an entirely new scenario, including a map is fairly daunting, but hopefully a future restructuring of the map classes and implementation of GIS imports will improve that aspect slightly. However, the scenario editor is intuitive enough that changing the OOB and redefining objectives and supply schedules isn't too difficult.

[Mehring]

I bought this a good while back and this forum has never been as consistently active as many other Matrix forums, so you can't blame the forums. Finding opponents has always been difficult and anyone not wanting to play with themselves will be put off by this.
 
I think the game has some 'unresolved issues' which anyone who investigates it in any depth and with an open mind will encounter sooner or later. That said, it is quite difficult for a gamer with decades of experience to approach a new wargame without imposing preconceptions upon it, how it should behave etc. Those preconceptions may not be right but what we 'know' and hold dear can take a while to break down in the face of something better. Many will move to something else rather than let their ideas be challenged. Younger gamers may want more immediate results than this game offers.
 
CotA is a very different game from anything I've ever played. I've been away from it for a while, returned, and I've come to enjoy it best as a game of cricket, at the slowest speed option. It's not so much a game of fireworks, of intense visual or audio action, but of planning and logistics.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: TinyPirate

I blame the ugliness of the Matrix forums (and how messy they are to navigate from the master list)...

I really wish that Matrix would organize their forums by developer. As is, these games, that ought to provide mutual support for one another, languish to an unnecessary degree. I've requested this in the GD forum, BTW, to no avail. Given that the forums have recently been reorganized into a bigger hash than before, Panther ought to consider taking the whole deal off-site and setting up an independent company forum. This may sound like small potatoes to a lot of folks, but the current scheme doesn't facilitate communication between fans of ALL of the Panther lineup. IMO, the same is true of games from SSG, 2x3 and Koiosworks. People who like one of their games, tend to be interested in the others. Spreading their game forums out, as in the current format, doesn't communicate anything but confusion and disorganization.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU
I am trying to pick my words carefully as I don't want to be flamed.

No Flaming here (maybe once)[:)]

ORIGINAL:
I am a long-time TOAW addict, but I have watched this series for a good while.

Perhaps your addiction is worse than mine. I played thousands of hours (really) of TOAW using TOAW 1, WOTY, and ACOW. I bought TOAW 3 just for laughs-played McBride's Tobruk online and Remini online and tinkered for about 30 minutes other than that. It was an amazing game, but it was time to move on.

ORIGINAL:
I decided (again) to consider purchasing COTA , especially in light on the BftB coming up soon.

You won't regret it.

ORIGINAL:
I know from talking to people how much they love the game system and how excellent they think the AI is.

The AI is the best that I have ever encountered. Compared to Elmer, (TOAW AI for those that don't know) the CotA AI would be the equal of a very good human player.

ORIGINAL:
So I was shocked, really shocked, when I saw how seemingly inactive this forum is and how few user made scenarios there I have been able to find for COTA. I understand that forums slow down after a time - but then one would expect to see the pages of past threads that one could search through. There appears to be just two pages of threads for COTA. Please keep in mind that I am looking at this through the eyes of someone used to seeing the large number of user scenarios for my two current favorites TOAW and John Tillers Campaign series.

As mentioned above, there are many pages going back to '06-at least. I bought this game in June of '06, and the forums were quite active at that time. It is clear that activity has fallen off here. Part of that may be because of the new site design (I come to the main forum nearly every day, but had missed the last several threads in this forum). It is much more likely that many players move on after a while to check out the new games. Even though CotA is my favorite game, I have bought, and played 2 new games in the last 4 months-I'm sure others have done the same. I can honestly say that I should have stuck to CotA for my last gaming season in December-a couple of online games would have been much more enjoyable and rewarding than what I found myself playing (or trying to play.

To compare the player forum activity level of CotA with TOAW you need to consider a few things. TOAW was released in "98 (when I bought the 1st version)-11 years ago. At that time, games were normally sold in retail outlets-there was much more exposure. TOAW must have sold tens of thousands of copies-maybe a few hundred thousand-that is a lot of players. When Matrix picked up the game, it came with a huge following ready made for this forum-and hundreds of extra scenarios-same for the CS (which I also own). In view of this huge advantage of TOAW in a user base CotA compares well in that it has maintained about 2/3rds the sales as TOAW since it's release. IIRC, TOAW 3 and CotA were released within a week of one another in '06-this hurt CotA sales no doubt-a tough break on the timing.

ORIGINAL:
So I am posting this in the sincere hope that there is a part of the COTA community that I have not discovered where there is an active forum and an scenario database.

There are a few other sites for Panther games going back to AA, but little activity. I wish there was more.

ORIGINAL:
Again, I mean nothing against COTA, I am truly hoping that I have been completely clueless and missed finding something.

You are somewhat correct in the observations of a lack of activity here-but don't let that stop you from getting a great game. What you are missing is the best operational game on the market-drastically different from TOAW.

ORIGINAL:
Thanks,

No problem. And, BTW; don't worry about an opponent for online play-when you are ready to give it a go, just let me know. The gaming sessions take somewhat more coordination than PBEM games, but it is worth it.

[06 Maestro]

So, I wanted to make sure about my memory of the release dates. Below are the release statements along with the dates. This was a tough break for PG. Not too may players will buy 2 games in a week-regardless how good those look.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



RE: Progress - 6/7/2006 9:14:56 PM

Arjuna
Moderator

It is my great pleasure to announce that we have just completed testing the installer and given the thumbs up. Matrix will now be passing this onto Digital River and COTA should go on sale in a day or two.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________






TOAW III Released! - 6/5/2006 4:50:26 PM

Erik Rutins
Matrix Games Staff

Hi all, just putting this on its own official thread. The official press release will be available later tonight. If you're looking for it in the store, please try the handy "Buy Now" link just below the sub-forum listing. That will take you to the right place if it's not showing up for you in the store yet (the store cache is clearing).

Regards,

- Erik
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I think the game has some 'unresolved issues' which anyone who investigates it in any depth and with an open mind will encounter sooner or later. That said, it is quite difficult for a gamer with decades of experience to approach a new wargame without imposing preconceptions upon it, how it should behave etc. Those preconceptions may not be right but what we 'know' and hold dear can take a while to break down in the face of something better. Many will move to something else rather than let their ideas be challenged.

I don't know if this is on the list of "unresolved issues" or not, but it drives me completely nuts when a unit that I've set to defend abandons a fortified position to maneuver.

As originally designed, the "Take Command" games exhibited a similar behavior. The brigade AI was quite good, and acquitted itself very well in its maneuvering. However, the same AI couldn't defend Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg because the Union brigades would have left their position to maneuver against the Confederates!

However, the second of the games from MadMinute was programmed to allow players to lock down individual regiments, the base infantry unit, so that fights like Cemetery Hill could take place. This was also possible in the scenario scripting, I believe. The problem with this is that the regiment is no longer part of the parent formation. It no longer benefits from the AI.

I'm really not sure what the answer to this is, BTW. I want an AI that can put up a good fight. I just don't want them to do anything TRULY ugly in the process!

[Arjuna]

If you use the in-situ formation for your defend order, then the units will defend from where they are currently located - ie they will stay put.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

If you use the in-situ formation for your defend order, then the units will defend from where they are currently located - ie they will stay put.

Dave, can you set them that way in the SM?

[Arjuna]

No you can't. So what you are really talking about is the AI's side objectives as set in the SM. That is a different issue again. I believe you are referring to your Germans manning the front line in your recent desert scenario. Correct? If so, the reason they didn't stand at the front line was you hadn't placed any side objectives there at all. But I will admit that even then there is a probability that the AI might allocate different units to the ones you have actually placed at a given objective and hence they can up stumps and move at the start of the scenario. This is an issue with COTA. We have worked on this significantly for BFTB and it's much better now.
 
Even so, the problem won't go away entirely until we can issue "initial" orders to units in the SM. This is a big job. It will introduce a number of issues that will need to be overcome, like:

• excluding these units from the at-start planning in the game
• determining which objectives have already been addressed by initial orders
• determining when these initial orders should end.
• determining when some or all of these units can be  given orders by the player etc, etc

I've added it to our wish list.
 
TT3756 - SM - AI - Assign initial orders to units in the SM and exclude these from at start planning
 
 

[Panther Paul]

Maybe we could simulate this with a checkbox and raidus value in the side task.

I.E. Set an Intial orders checkbox, and a radius. During the first planning cycle for the side it would do an intital pass of all side tasks and for any with the check set find all untis in the radius and assign them to that task. Set an itnitial formation type of in-situ, and then let the normal reassement code decide when to replan and maybe pick up stumps.

This might be the simplest system?

I can think of a few issues of course, but I think it could work.

Paul

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I believe you are referring to your Germans manning the front line in your recent desert scenario. Correct? If so, the reason they didn't stand at the front line was you hadn't placed any side objectives there at all.

No, I was talking about the AI Italians entrenched at Halfaya Pass. They began maneuvering in response to the advance of the 22nd Gds (west) and the Coast Force (east). I'm pretty sure that they'd have held out longer had they stayed put. Note my analogy to my experience playing the Take Command games. Sometimes, a unit needs to maneuver to survive, sometimes they need to hold their ground.

IRL, the Germans got word of what Gott was up to and pulled their forces on the frontier back toward Capuzzo, excepting the Italians at Halfaya, of course. I attempted a couple of different strategies to get the Germans to do the same. When I used AI, 0-point objectives, some of them would fall back nicely, while others went off to reinforce Halfaya. Going with higher-yield AP at Capuzzo, Hafid Ridge and Sidi Azeiz produced similar results, interestingly enough.

TT3756 - SM - AI - Assign initial orders to units in the SM and exclude these from at start planning

Good deal. [&o]

For our readers, below is a screenshot of the deployments in SM that Dave and I are making reference to:

[Arjuna]

Paul,
 
Yeh it could work. Either way it means making changes to the ScenAllocation code. It should only work for Secure and Defend tasks types.

[Arjuna]

PoE,
 
So where did the Italians go to? Were they just changing facing or did they move some distance? If so where?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

PoE,

So where did the Italians go to? Were they just changing facing or did they move some distance? If so where?

Some of them actually advanced over the Wadi towards the Allies, while others moved out onto the plateau above the pass. Sometimes, its a bigger problem than others. Played as the Axis, they behave much better.

BTW, I think that I figured out how to get the German detachments on the frontier south of Halfaya Pass to fall back more reliably. If I start the scenario at night, and set everything to NO INTEL, there's nothing for them react to but the objective markers.

Which leads me to an issue of sorts...

For some reason, I can't set the proper dusk/dawn times in the Weather setup. Rather, I can set them, but they won't stick, and revert to the scenario start and stop times when I exit Weather Setup. Is this an issue, or am I possibly doing something wrong?

[Arjuna]

PoE,
 
Re the Sunrise and Sunset times. We manage weather in hour increments. So it rounds down to the hour and that is why it looks like its being ignored. We hop-e at some stage in the future to change this so we can use a one minute increment. But that's the way it is now. We probably should have a comment on that window to that effect.
 
TT3757 - SM - Weather - Add comment advising that sunrise/sunset times are rounded down to the hour
 
 
 

[Arjuna]

Done for BFTB. [:)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

PoE,

Re the Sunrise and Sunset times. We manage weather in hour increments. So it rounds down to the hour and that is why it looks like its being ignored. We hop-e at some stage in the future to change this so we can use a one minute increment. But that's the way it is now. We probably should have a comment on that window to that effect.

TT3757 - SM - Weather - Add comment advising that sunrise/sunset times are rounded down to the hour

Ah, so there's a method to the madness! [;)]

I shall respond in kind. I'll move the start time up an hour, to give myself a little more darkness to play with.

Thanks for the info!