ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan
Gents -
I have reposted Herwin's original remarks, from his AAR, and my response; as I felt that this is indeed food for thought. His comments succinctly sumarize the thoughts I have entertained for some time. Herwin - I do hope that you do not mind my reference to your post; you deserve all credit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: herwin
I'll put my thoughts here, rather than disturb the newbies.
1. I think the naval game is pretty good. No complaints.
2. I think the air game is generally pretty good, but I think the game needs an air tasking order. That is, the player should be able to identify his/her priority targets and missions, and the game engine then uses them to allocate sorties. Individual squadrons might or might not be taskable.
3. I think the game needs an 'amphibious landing plan' capability. This would give the commander of the operation the ability to control the deployment of reserves and the detailed schedule of phases.
4. The game needs to model within-hex ground combat. The basic element being fought over should be one or more 50 square kilometre areas (1% of a hex). Casualties need to be more realistic, too--take into account target acquisition as part of the target engagement process so that task organisation is motivated to be 'right-sized'. Model the different results of stealth reconnaissance, reconnaissance in force, bombardment, hasty attack, deliberate attack, screening, hasty defense, positional defense, fortified defense, defense of a river line or beach, urban defense, mountain operations, pursuit, delay, retreat, mobile battle, and exploitation within the hex.
Herwin -
Excellent points. Implementation of the above would be the next major step in the evolution of AE - moving it from "outstanding" to "phenomenal". I realize that this would call for major code changes - far beyond what I comprehend (not to mention endless hours of work); but the bottom line is that AE has a solid following because of it's unmatched depth, detail and realism; and continues to draw and excite creative talent to do more as the limits have yet to be reached.
Mac
< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 1/17/2011 9:24:12 PM >
_____________________________
LAV-25 2147
Mac,
I usually enjoy your enthusiasm and optimistic vibe regarding the potential for continuously improving AE, but this time I don’t think you have really thought through the ramifications of what you are supporting. Nor for that matter has the originator of this thought bubble.
What you have posted is a typical thought bubble. This type of thought bubble is often raised on the forum by people who:
(a) fail to learn how to play the game properly and ascribe their play deficiencies to game shortcomings which can only be remedied by radical changes to the game engine,
(b) despite all the evidence to the contrary insist on demanding that AE be treated as a combat simulation,
(c) know they will never be held accountable for their thought bubble – they will never be required to actually labour through the work required to implement the thought bubble,
(d) fail to see the internal inconsistencies, and
(e) forget Lincoln’s great aphorism: “
You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”
Here are just some of the concrete difficulties associated with this particular thought bubble. These issues are consistent with the points made in the preceding paragraph.
1. It was put into an AAR so as to not “disturb the newbies”. Really. Since when do newbies not read AARs. What mischief would arise if newbies did read the thought bubble? The clear inference is that only experienced AE players could hope to cope with the intellectual complexity of the thought proposal. What intellectual arrogance.
Let us suspend disbelief and proceed on the basis that indeed only an experienced player would understand this thought bubble. The thought bubble was presented in an AAR and not the main AE forum, the net result being a much greater likelihood of it being missed by experienced players. I for one only became aware of it because of the prominence you gave it. No, I am afraid that the concern expressed for newbies comes across much more as an excuse to make the originator of the thought bubble appear to be an expert but reduce exposure of the thought bubble to the antiseptic qualities of sunlight associated with the open market place of ideas.
2. Apparently the air game needs a “tasking order” but the naval game doesn’t. Did you not notice the internal inconsistency of this proposition. There are many, many posts which decry the lack of naval tasking orders such as:
• Why can’t I direct my subs to only launch their torpedoes only against the fat juicy merchantmen and totally overlook the escorting sub chaser
• I only want my bombardment task force to lob shells at the enemy airfield, not at the coconut trees along the beach
• Why can’t my outnumbered battle wagons not immediately attempt to flee under cover of a protective smoke screen/torpedo salvo laid down by my destroyer screen
• I want my carrier dive and torpedo bombers to go after the enemy flattops and not their destroyer escorts, any fool in the air can see the difference in size and importance of the two potential targets
The public will become very angry if only air tasking were to be introduced. I suppose however that if one is competent in handling the existing naval game but not the air game, this inconsistency would not be noticed.
3. AE is essentially a strategic/operational game, albeit with very significant tactical elements, which spans, what 60% of the globe at the scale of 40 nautical miles (sea hexes) and 46 statute miles (land hexes). Each land hex covers 2116 square miles. By introducing “within-hex ground combat”, this thought bubble wants to break down land combat down to only 50 square miles. Putting aside for the moment technical considerations, land combat would still remain an abstraction. There is no virtue attached
per se to a smaller scale. There would still be judgement calls made as to how to represent in the abstract, the real world, even assuming that you could achieve agreement on what actually is the real world.
Now let us touch briefly on some of the technical issues of this smaller scale, “within-hex ground combat”. Assume you are about to launch an assault against a prepared position, it is not a meeting engagement. How exactly do you represent the different defence zones and the ability of the defender to withdraw in good order from his first line to his second, thence his third
ad infinitum. The attacker is making steady progress, capturing an airfield here and there (but not all the airfields present in the 2116 square miles of the hex - would the defender lose some aircraft before they are able to undertake their mission), perhaps capturing the high ground overlooking the naval base making that naval facility unusable but still in the possession of the enemy (would some ships/subs be scuttled automatically). As the defender methodically falls back, he is moving towards his supply depots whereas the attacker is moving away from his. How do you represent the defenders pre registered artillery fire. Just how much terrain would have to be captured for the entire hex and all its facilities to change ownership (and pray there are no cut off enemy strong points left behind that still require their reduction). And all this “within-hex ground combat” progress will occur and be faithfully represented in a 24 hour turn, or 7 day turn or a month of fighting? How exactly would the different terrain concountered within a 46 square mile hex be represented, how would it impact upon combat?
4. Too many players already complain of the degree of micromanagement in the game. Would not the logical extension of this thought bubble be even more sub units, more micro management, dare I say, more tactical elements introduced into a fundamentally strategic/operation level game. Make no mistake, this is no DaBabes team preparing a DEI small scale scenario severely limited in both time and place. You are supporting a fundamental reengineering of a game which spans approximately 60% of the globe for the period December 1941-March 1946. You have not heeded JWE’s warning regarding the suitability of his forthcoming mod, yet you wish to inflict an even more severe treatment onto everyone who plays the Grand Campaign. Given any thought that you might be in the minority?
5. Care to nominate who would undertake all this work for free? When the project would be completed? How high would be the hardware requirements to process a turn before the player would need to leave home for the office?
Why or why do players, freed from the burdens of knowledge and skill and the responsibility of implementing thought bubbles, consistently assume that only they have seen the light which the devs are incapable of seeing. I suppose the old saying is true, ignorance is bliss.
Alfred
