Matrix Games Forums

Is the HttR control system similar to the Battleground series 'commander control' feature? I enjoyed that under-used feature a lot (it got rid of the annoying and unrealistic micromanagement that spoils many traditional hex-based wargames), but it was poorly-implemented and apparently misunderstood by the game's marketing department, and thus most players didn't appreciate it.

If this game is what it appears to be, I'll be really excited to see a better-implemented version of 'commander control' in this game, as I've been hoping that someone would come up with a similar system that really lets the player appreciate real command decisions, rather than the god-like ability that most games give us that allows far too much control over our units.

Also, does anyone know if HttR includes a full Market Garden scenario, or are the scenarios all small portions of the battle?

Beery,

I can't comment on the Battleground series as I have not played them ( too busy on designing our own I'm afraid ). But HTTR is a command game in that you need only give orders to subordinate HQs and they can then manage their subordinate units. Of course, we cater for those who wish to micromanage as well ( you know "god games" are still very popular ). It's essentially a matter of choice how you play the game.

There are four large maps covering the Neerpelt, Eindhoven, Nijmegen and Arnhem sectors. Each has one or more campaign scenarios covering the action on that map. There is no overall campaign scenario on just one big map. There is just not enough processing power in todays PCs to handle that. Maybe in a few more years.

Beery wrote:Is the HttR control system similar to the Battleground series 'commander control' feature? I enjoyed that under-used feature a lot (it got rid of the annoying and unrealistic micromanagement that spoils many traditional hex-based wargames), but it was poorly-implemented and apparently misunderstood by the game's marketing department, and thus most players didn't appreciate it.

I can only comment on my trial of this feature on BG-Waterloo.
They are not at all similar. They do not share the same approach.

In BG, you have to micro-manage, until you choose to let the AI control some of your troops.
In AA, you don't mico-manage, until you really want some units to defend or probe at certain location. AA is by essence a command game.

The range of orders that you have at your disposal is much more elaborated than in the BG 'commander control', where only defend and attack are available, as far as I remember. In AA, you can choose, formation, frontage, aggressivness, etc ...

The user interface of the 'commander control' feature in BG was cryptic (to say the least) and it was not easy to know at which level you already asked the AI to take control. In AA, you clearly see to which units you gave orders (a portion of the counter turns white). You clearly see which units they control (green lines). You clearly see which is the upper HQ in the chain of command (blue line if in command, grey if detached).

Finaly, the AI in BG is not up to the par with the AI in AA. It's the computer that will micro-manage your units. It has at least to be decent. The AI in BG did too many obvious faults to me to be of any help (most of the time, mixing formation, which leads to disorder).

You might find some useful screenshots in this article :
Comparison between Airborne Assault and traditional computer operational wargames
The article is based on AA:RDoA, of course, but I think it is still valid for HttR.

If this game is what it appears to be, I'll be really excited to see a better-implemented version of 'commander control' in this game, as I've been hoping that someone would come up with a similar system that really lets the player appreciate real command decisions, rather than the god-like ability that most games give us that allows far too much control over our units.

The game is what it appears to be.
The system is not similar. But it "really lets the player appreciate real command decisions, rather than the god-like ability that most games give us that allows far too much control over our units".

I usually give orders at Bn level (normlly, the first level of HQ, commanding Coys). But you can choose and experiment with any combination.

I hope this helps,

JeF.

JeF

An interesting article.

Question - There is a reference in the article to an improved supply system coming in HttR. Can you comment on that? Supply/logistics are obviously an important part of any accurate operational simulation. Thanks.

elmo3

JeF wrote:In BG, you have to micro-manage, until you choose to let the AI control some of your troops. In AA, you don't mico-manage, until you really want some units to defend or probe at certain location. AA is by essence a command game.

BG Waterloo had no necessity of micromanaging. It was a play style choice. You could micromanage, or you could use 'Commander Control'.

JeF wrote:The range of orders that you have at your disposal is much more elaborated than in the BG 'commander control', where only defend and attack are available, as far as I remember. In AA, you can choose, formation, frontage, aggressivness, etc ....

It's certainly true that the BG commander control feature was severely underdeveloped, but it was the first game (as far as I'm aware) that allowed players to play from a 'real' command perspective. You chose attack, defend, and levels of aggressiveness, while your subordinate commanders chose the frontage and the best formation for the job. Also, morale played a big part, and formations would disintegrate if forced to do actions that their morale state wouldn't permit. The morale feature really ONLY worked if you were using commander control. Morale was almost completely ineffective in the standard micromanagement game. This is why the commander control feature was (in my view) a better way for 'grognards' to play the game system.

JeF wrote:The user interface of the 'commander control' feature in BG was cryptic (to say the least) and it was not easy to know at which level you already asked the AI to take control...

The user interface was indeed cryptic, but I think that was because the commander control feature was almost completely undocumented. I actually wrote the only in-depth documentation and analysis of the feature (I believe it's still on the web somewhere).

JeF wrote:Finaly, the AI in BG is not up to the par with the AI in AA. It's the computer that will micro-manage your units. It has at least to be decent. The AI in BG did too many obvious faults to me to be of any help (most of the time, mixing formation, which leads to disorder).

That's true if you were playing the regular 'micromanaging' game. If you used commander control, the AI would fight quite effectively. I played numerous games using the feature, and at the optimal level of command, the AI could often beat the player. I never won BG Waterloo as the French while using 'commander control'.

elmo3 wrote:JeF

An interesting article.

Question - There is a reference in the article to an improved supply system coming in HttR. Can you comment on that? Supply/logistics are obviously an important part of any accurate operational simulation. Thanks.

elmo3

Current Airborne Assault games model the expediture of supplies (ammunition, fuel, ...) very accurately. But re-supply is poorly modeled. Every unit is re-supplied to a certain level every day, at 3:00 AM, I think. As if all units were connected to a supply line. You cannot cut units from supply.
That's not perfect, of course. But it works quite well anyway with the current game.

JeF.

Beery,

You might be right, saying that the BG 'commander control' feature was the first game to allow a real command perpective. I also thought, at the time, that it was a pity it was soo poorly implemented and documented.

Somehow, using such a feature balances the game, as both players use the same AI to micro-manage the troops. In BG-Waterloo, winning as the French was too easy. Maybe I should give it a try, once again.

I've heard that the 'commander control' feature survived through the PzC series, but, as far as I know, it is not as elabotated as the chain of command implemented in Airborne Assault.

I'm sure you'll like it.

JeF.
[I just found an article about BG command control at the Wargamer. Do you happen to be the Mr Ian Cooper who wrote the article ?]

JeF

Thanks for the reply. I wondered how units would be considered isolated and I guess the answer is they aren't. Not a game breaker for sure but maybe resupply will get some enhancements in future installments.

You are correct regarding the PzC command and control feature not being anything like what is in AA. The system in AA is much more elaborate. From my limited play of the RDOA demo recently I'd say it's the heart of the game system whereas in PzC it plays little part.

elmo3

JeF wrote:[I just found an article about BG command control at the Wargamer. Do you happen to be the Mr Ian Cooper who wrote the article ?]

That's me. Back in my BG-playing days I published a few 'realism' mods for the Battleground series (fixing reinforcement schedules, correcting uniform details etc.). Nowadays I'm better-known in computer gaming circles as 'Beery', since I published a big (17MB) Red Baron 3D mod, and mods for a few other games, under that name.

elmo3 wrote:JeF

Thanks for the reply. I wondered how units would be considered isolated and I guess the answer is they aren't. Not a game breaker for sure but maybe resupply will get some enhancements in future installments.
elmo3

elmo3,

The "biggy" new feature for Game 3 "Battles from the Bulge" will be a reworked resupply system.

Thanks Arjuna. There are some who will say "Oh no, not another Bulge game." but it's always been a favorite of mine and of course you guys haven't done it before with this engine.

If you're looking for suggestions related to airborne assaults, I'd love to see AA:Crete at some point. There was a large Soviet air drop near Kanev in '44 that might be worth considering too.

[QUOTE=elmo3]Thanks Arjuna. There are some who will say "Oh no, not another Bulge game." [QUOTE]

Let me be the first (or is it the second now?) to say... Oh no, not another Bulge game! :rolleyes:

Oh well, it's not like I have to buy it or anything. But it means that I'm missing out on a more interesting title that could have been developed. It would be nice if developers could use a bit of imagination and research to find more interesting battles than the same tired 'old chestnuts' that they drag out again and again. It's always 'D-Day', 'The Bulge', 'Arnhem'. I mean there was an entire World War to select battles from and we always get the same 3 over and over again. I mean Northern France, Belgium and Holland are nice places with friendly people, but do I have to spend my entire WW2 gaming career there? Okay, sure, there's also 'Korsun Pocket' right now - Russia is the other standby that game companies go to when they use a bit of imagination, but come on guys - you've developed a great new gaming system with stunning AI and you're giving us the same old scenarios we've fought 100 times before???

Okay, rant over. Sorry.

While there may be more then a few "Bulge" games, few if any have AA's command and control. I for one am dieing for it.

Hurry up will ya, 2 strokes, 3 heart attacks, pretty much out of luck! I was actually joking with Dave that I might not make it for HTTR's shipping.

If Dave can capitalize on AA's engine to put out a Bulge quickly, more power to him. It is not like anyone else is doing anything in this particular market.

As far as D-Day, Arnhem, Bulge, the realities here ... the majority of the computer market happens to be in the USA. Doing areas that happen to be market focused leads to better sales which in turn means developer gets fed to continue writing more...

Mr.Frag wrote:While there may be more then a few "Bulge" games, few if any have AA's command and control. I for one am dieing for it.

Hurry up will ya, 2 strokes, 3 heart attacks, pretty much out of luck! I was actually joking with Dave that I might not make it for HTTR's shipping.

If Dave can capitalize on AA's engine to put out a Bulge quickly, more power to him. It is not like anyone else is doing anything in this particular market.

As far as D-Day, Arnhem, Bulge, the realities here ... the majority of the computer market happens to be in the USA. Doing areas that happen to be market focused leads to better sales which in turn means developer gets fed to continue writing more...

Hang in there Mr Frag. Release in less than two weeks. Thrills and challenges imminent. BTW start off easy will you. Avoid the Terror of the Tyne Tees and Mook Right Hook until you have the system under your belt. We don't want to cause you too much of a shock!

Hang in there Mr Frag. Release in less than two weeks. Thrills and challenges imminent. BTW start off easy will you. Avoid the Terror of the Tyne Tees and Mook Right Hook until you have the system under your belt. We don't want to cause you too much of a shock!

Too late Dave, I got suckered into testing War in the Pacific ... talk about shell shock, I'm looking at HTTR as a nice rest break after planning a 20 hour turn

It's pretty bad when you turn to a wargame to get stress relief from another wargame