Moderators: Panther Paul, Arjuna
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I'm mulling over a number of other options. These include modelling "attack by fire" and "fix", two tasks often used in offensive operations. Another option is to provide the user with the means of sequencing tasks and combining that with triggers so that the user can develop richer plans. Another option is to provide the user with the ability to develop multiple operational plans. At the moment they onl;y have the one op plan. The way I see this working is that you would first hide the current op plan, create a new contingency op plan and seed it with various order tasks. These would not take affect until the op plan is activated. Activation would change the status of the current op plan to "old" and set the selected contingency plan ( from a list in the sidebar ) to be the new current one. There are a lot of cases to cover, like what if the forceGroup for an order is no longer the same ( becasue a unit has exited or been destroyed ), but I do beleive it would add another dimension to the game. Effectively it would allow you to model the Future Ops function performed by the staff. It would certainly allow the player the option to work harder. [:)]
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
At this stage all I can say is that we will be focussing on doctrinal features.
, and as a result now appreciate the true nature of the “space, time”....thing in Bulge. 
.ORIGINAL: kipanderson
Superb...!
Hi,
Just a quick note to say how much I am now enjoying Bulge after the patch.
I go back many years with the engine in an “no off” way and always thought it a very high quality engine but being hyper critical, the fault no doubt being with me, never quite got addicted.
Now all that has changed.
The patch has fixed very successfully the tendency of the company units to gyrate, move around as I would expect platoons or squad to do. Now they hold their position as operational units may be imagined to.
I have also put the effort in to try and learn the game, actually read some of the manual, watched the tutorial moves
Really is outstanding. BFTB has no equals as an operational game, nothing else comes close. Is to operational games what Combat Mission is to tactical games. Others in the field need not even bother to turn-up....
Looking forward to many more titles.....
All the best,
Kip.
PS. Each to their own but with this patch I feel the engine has hit full maturity so am keen to see only small changes between titles so as to allow new titles to be cranked out as quickly as possible. Minimum changes needed to convert to Eastern Front then crank them out... !!!
ORIGINAL: kipanderson
Remember the player plays the part of the battalion, regiment/brigade, divisional and corps commander in these simulations. Or you can do if you wish. Thus doctrinal changes that “force...” the Soviet player to play in a foolish way are problematic.
ORIGINAL: benpark
Interesting. I foresee alarmeinheiten unit OOB nightmares in your future.
ORIGINAL: wodin
Erm, the doctrine changes will be going in at coy level I presume sort of under the hood, something we wont actually see I expect. Also like as Dave said he will be adding Soviet formations and I suppose taking others away. It's always been said that the first thing needed for the east front game is a Russain combat doctrine by players and more importantly Dave, so it is going to happen. It wont take away control, you may have to change your tactics which isn't bad thing as it gives variation between the two sides.
Without this change as I said you may aswell have the US vs germans on the russian steppe with the US with russian weapons. So it will be more or less like BftB then. I want to have to change my style of play and tactical thinking when I play different nations in games.
We play as the US using their combat doctrine in BFTB and you still have the control you need.
Wahst the point of playing against or as the Soviets if they are going to fight like the US? May aswell be the US with different weapons. Thats why I love the idea of different combat doctrines in this game. Not many wargames go down this route and I think it will be superb. It will feel and hopefully play far more realistically then any other eats front game out I'm. I expect the Russians will have alot more forces but take more casualties yet still manage to win as their Objectives will probably ignore any allied losses.
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I have already ruled out tank riders as this will take too long to model. I have advised the scenario designers to simply make these motorised infantry. I know it isn't exactly realistic but it's a reasonable compromise if we are to see this out in the first half of next year.
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
As to Cav, well I'm still pondering that one. I am reluctant to add yet another move class and consequent sets of move tables. But the worst of it is the code changes I will need to make to implement them. Stay tuned....
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Re contingency planning. What makes you think there will be no delay?
I was thinking in "less" Force delay, but failed to write that.ORIGINAL: Arjuna
It may be reduced but there will still be a delay. Orders have to come from the top down. Remember the contingency plans are operation plans for the on map boss not for all levels of force. That would become unmanageable. However with the use of triggers within an op plan you can and should be able to reduce delays significantly. Eg. You order a tank Bn to defend with a subsequent task to attack town X and a trigger to end the defend and start the attack based on if the enemy enters zone Y. Now it would be justifiable to assume that the Bn would have received orders to this effect and therefore able to implement them at short notice.
