Whats up?

[Vic]

Hi all,

Just a quick word from me. Basically the follow up on the release of Case Blue went quite well. There have been some bugs, but a number of patches has adressed them quickly.

I am currently completing a big new feature patch for Advanced Tactics adding some random officers to Advanced Tactics' its random games. Once that is finished I'll start on a new patch for Case Blue.

For Case Blue there is a small list of little bugs that need fixing, as well as some further finetuning i'd like to do. Especially as more player feedbacks keeps coming in I get some good pointers where i can improve things. Big thanks to everybody voicing opinion, making AARs, reporting issues and giving suggestions.

However i am looking forward to get to work with adding some features as well. I am thinking of 3 new features:

* Give the AI strategic sense on the big campaign maps. So that for example the Soviet AI will actually give ground at the start because it will realise standing and fighting at this force ratio would be unwise if it can also retreat for 1 month and receive 200k extra trooops. I think a lot can still be gained on improving especially the defensive AI in long term play (standing and fighting is actually good in the short scenarios).

* Allow for manual transfers between units for those who want to have the ability to do some micro-management. (annoying problem here is i dont think i have any button space left for a new order and i might have to do some redesign to create more space on the orderbar)

* Make a simplified version of the editor so that people can actually make their own simple scenarios on any front without to much problems. I think there is still a lot to be gained here in replayability of the game. The engine is quite flexible and I would love to see user-created scenarios.

Kind regards,
Vic

[Korzun]

Excellent! Very pleased to hear that. Your effort in continuously improving the game is much appreciated. Though I post quite rarely this has to be said. DC WtP and CB are my absolute favourites at the moment.

[Bonners]

Obviously I cant make a comparison to other strategy games as this is the first PC one I have ever played. But I'd like to echo Korsun's comments. Really enjoying the game including the very humbling learning experiences I'm getting against human opponents at the moment.

[Redmarkus5]

"The engine is quite flexible and I would love to see user-created scenarios."

Great! Can't wait to see this change.

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi all,

Just a quick word from me. Basically the follow up on the release of Case Blue went quite well. There have been some bugs, but a number of patches has adressed them quickly.

I am currently completing a big new feature patch for Advanced Tactics adding some random officers to Advanced Tactics' its random games. Once that is finished I'll start on a new patch for Case Blue.

For Case Blue there is a small list of little bugs that need fixing, as well as some further finetuning i'd like to do. Especially as more player feedbacks keeps coming in I get some good pointers where i can improve things. Big thanks to everybody voicing opinion, making AARs, reporting issues and giving suggestions.

However i am looking forward to get to work with adding some features as well. I am thinking of 3 new features:

* Give the AI strategic sense on the big campaign maps. So that for example the Soviet AI will actually give ground at the start because it will realise standing and fighting at this force ratio would be unwise if it can also retreat for 1 month and receive 200k extra trooops. I think a lot can still be gained on improving especially the defensive AI in long term play (standing and fighting is actually good in the short scenarios).

* Allow for manual transfers between units for those who want to have the ability to do some micro-management. (annoying problem here is i dont think i have any button space left for a new order and i might have to do some redesign to create more space on the orderbar)

* Make a simplified version of the editor so that people can actually make their own simple scenarios on any front without to much problems. I think there is still a lot to be gained here in replayability of the game. The engine is quite flexible and I would love to see user-created scenarios.

Kind regards,
Vic

Hi Vic

I'll pick up the ball, thanks for the opportunity. At this point thanks for this great game, to me it offers way more fun than War in the East. [&o]

As for your ideas:
1) Strategic sense for the AI: Excellent!!! This could be taken one step further for improving Stavka/OKH reading of the situation before dishing out new major/minor orders to gain/lose prestige. These prestige objectives might be tied to where the player has massed his main offensive tools - speak Artillery units, Pz/Mot/Cav Divisions or Tank/Cav/Mech Corps on soviet side. I really hate to get new objectives far away from my mobile formations, as normally the granted time frame to reach the prestige objectives is very tight and hardly ever offers enough time to redeploy offensive formations. So please tie OHK/Stavka orders to regions where actual offensives are taking place.

2) Manual transfer between units: Of course it would be nice if we could attach orphaned regiments into divisions/corps which have lost whole sub-units, but to me keeping veteran soldiers from losing their experience level when their unit gets disbanded should have higher priority. I'd like to be able to merge weakened units into other similar-size units which are in need of replacements. Right now units which have lost most combat value can be disbanded, but these disbanded veteran soldiers seem to be transformed into green recruits if they return to needy units via pool-replacements. I do hope you give us the opportunity to limit the experience hit we have to take now. So please let us merge similar-size units. If they'd get too large due to the merger then the surplus could be sent to the pool (preferably into a veteran soldier pool different from the current newbie pool if two pools are feasible to implement).
Regarding the interface problem: You might consider to replace the two buttons for unit management (make new unit/sub unit options) with one button opening a window (maybe similar to the window opening when playing a card) for general unit management with current and new functions.

3) An Editor might be very nice, but the way I see it there are more pressing issues to solve, including:
- Supply interdiction: I plan to document this in the AAR I've started. In short: Sewastopol is impossible to keep supplied because Axis airplanes - which don't even have to take off but can rest and resupply while sinking soviet supply ships... - seem to cause way too heavy supply losses on way too many hexes along the sea supply lanes. The Kerch region on the Crimea suffers from this too, but to a lesser degree. Please tone down sea supply interdiction or let axis planes at least lose readiness and supply/ammo each turn when they are on interdiction duty and don't let them do free interdiction while they are on R&R between ground attack turns.
- Readiness recovering eats all ammo: Units on low readiness use up ALL their available supply to recover readiness. Please code this in a way that readiness recovering ALWAYS leaves at least a minimum portion (0.5 maybe?) of stock-points of a unit's ammo needs and does not let units end up with zero ammo even if they don't move. In which army do soldiers order soap when their rifles are empty… An army forced to retreat fast not only loses readiness and entrenchment levels but also gets punished because readiness recovery eats up too many supplies.

Thanks for considering to further improve this nice game. [:)]

Greetings,

Jay

[Redmarkus5]

I have always been somewhat skeptical about the value that is put on 'experience' in war games. My reading suggests that, for a majority of formations, the more combat experience troops have the more cautious and less inclined to fight they become. They might have higher survival rates, but these are generally a result of them being less inclined to act boldly.

'Fanatical' units aside (and they are always in the minority in any army) well trained or elite but green troops are the ones most likely to drive forward regardless - think 101 or 82 Airborne in Normandy or the RM Commando operations on the French coast. In terms of 'attack value' I would put a lot more store in a 'green' unit of Paras, SS, etc. than in even the most highly 'experienced' unit of regulars. In fact, one British division in Normandy gained so much experience that it had to be disbanded after its members refused combat.

For most soldiers experience and battle fatigue go hand in hand, and the addition of green replacements (as long as they have been properly trained and equipped) should boost combat strength, not reduce it.

[76mm]

Vic these changes sound great.

One question: I'm actually interested in using DCCB as the op layer for a tactical metacampaign, but to do so I would have to be able to revise save-game files (to reflect the results of the tactical battles). Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way to do that now, and don't expect to be able to do so any time soon. Is that correct?

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Vic these changes sound great.

One question: I'm actually interested in using DCCB as the op layer for a tactical metacampaign, but to do so I would have to be able to revise save-game files (to reflect the results of the tactical battles). Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way to do that now, and don't expect to be able to do so any time soon. Is that correct?

Sounds interesting..what game would you play out the tactical battles?

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I have always been somewhat skeptical about the value that is put on 'experience' in war games. My reading suggests that, for a majority of formations, the more combat experience troops have the more cautious and less inclined to fight they become. They might have higher survival rates, but these are generally a result of them being less inclined to act boldly.

'Fanatical' units aside (and they are always in the minority in any army) well trained or elite but green troops are the ones most likely to drive forward regardless - think 101 or 82 Airborne in Normandy or the RM Commando operations on the French coast. In terms of 'attack value' I would put a lot more store in a 'green' unit of Paras, SS, etc. than in even the most highly 'experienced' unit of regulars. In fact, one British division in Normandy gained so much experience that it had to be disbanded after its members refused combat.

For most soldiers experience and battle fatigue go hand in hand, and the addition of green replacements (as long as they have been properly trained and equipped) should boost combat strength, not reduce it.

I tend to disagree. Green troops are more prone to panic in combat situations, forget their training under fire, are less capable of teamwork, are more prone to be shellshocked, feel pinned down more easily, adapt less well to changing combat situations, lose the focus on the mission more easily. All these factors definitely should not lead to a higher "attack value".

The British division probably rather had a morale problem - in game terms - I'd say, and "experience" in most games rather reflects better reactions in combat situations (as a result of both training and learning the necessary lessons only the battle field can teach) rather than having the funcion of a trauma measure.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: wodin
Sounds interesting..what game would you play out the tactical battles?

CMx2 East Front once it comes out, if I ever come to like the CMx2 engine...

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Vic these changes sound great.

One question: I'm actually interested in using DCCB as the op layer for a tactical metacampaign, but to do so I would have to be able to revise save-game files (to reflect the results of the tactical battles). Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way to do that now, and don't expect to be able to do so any time soon. Is that correct?

Thats correct 76mm.

[76mm]

Thats correct 76mm.

Thanks.

Would it be possible to do something like this via cards? Maybe after a tactical battle the results of which need to be reflected in the op layer, either use a card to remove a certain number of men/vehicles from a unit, or delete a unit and replace it with a new one with the correct number of men/vehicles?

I don't need a detailed answer at this point, but would be interested to know if you think something like this might be possible...

[Vic]

Nope there just is no way the engine allows you to change the combat result. Not by cards not by anything. Sorry man.

[76mm]

heh, that's OK, thanks for the response.

[Keunert]

great plans there, thank you for the info Vic.

[olivier34]

A scenario editor for a newbie like me would be awesome.

[Redmarkus5]

It's a function of training as much as experience (and of course leadership, discipline and belief). Indeed, good training is experience. Green Wehrmacht troops didn't generally panic and run away in September 1939 and neither did the Airborne on their first missions. I was a recruit training officer for two years, so I believe in the training system and I have seen what it can achieve.

[Reconvet]

My service time included several years as instructor too, I'd never deny that good training and leadership ARE important for combat performance. But no amount or quality of training can prepare you for the real thing or can guarantee that even your top recruits won't crack in combat situations. So I'll stick to my argument that battle experience should remain a significant factor for "attack values" in wargames as DCCB.

[Redmarkus5]

I'm not saying it isn't a factor, just that it may be over-stated in many games. In my mind, training is a much bigger differentiator between opposing forces than experience. At the extreme end of the spectrum compare the performance of so many third world militias, some with many years of real combat experience under their belts, against a properly trained but 'green' first world army. First world wins almost every time, at least on the conventional battlefield, and this isn't only down to equipment and logistics.

[Keunert]

years ago i read a book on this issue. it argued that with every winter and counter offensive the Wehrmacht lost a lot of their experienced officers and soldiers. from 42 on they lost in overall experience due to the high losses of the Ostfront.

i agree with redmarkus, there are lot's of games modelling experience in the extreme. Panzer General was one of them. this is a little strange, given that the Soviets, Brits or whoever had soldiers in the field with the same amount of time on the battlefield.