We demand information

[JeF]

I recently came accross this tidbit on news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.games .war-historical :

>>One thing that I would like to see operational (a step up from
>> HTTR)games portray is the effect of enemy units in breaking into the
>> rear. The destruction of rear units could be reflected in the combat
>> units 'States'.


You'll be happy to know then that COTA is really on the operational level
and models this effect pretty good through supply units, supply lines and
the effects on combat units of being unsupplied - without burdening the
player with bean-counting.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Is it true ? Isn't it not a fantasm from a new beta tester ?

And I remind that the question of CriticalMass regarding the campaign still has no answer.

The rule is : "Thou shall add no more than one major feature per game".

Will the officer in charge dare to post some updates regarding the committed (or committable) feature set of COTA ? Unpassable mountains ? Campaign ? Supply ? 3D maps and counter ?

We demand more information !

BTW, if you would have a ETA, we'd be glad as well. [:)]

JeF.

[Arjuna]

JeF,

As always we are constantly reviewing what features we can and cannot include in our next game. When you are at the cutting edge of original R&D you often discover new opportunities to do things better, become aware of things that need to be simulated and hit problems previously not encountered. So one has to have a flexible approach to feature sets.

One of the things we came to realise when doing COTA was the need to simulate slope effects and mixed mode movement. The steep terrain channeled and constricted motorised movement and we needed to model this. This feature turned out to be a major undertaking. One not orginally forseen or appreciated.

After researching the Greek campaign we also came to realise the severe constraints imposed upon both sides by the supply systems. To really simulate this properly we need a more realistic resupply system. Again this is a major feature in its own right. We are currently working on this and aim to incorproate it into COTA. Another area that we realised needed attention was the Delay code. The existing HTTR Delay code was not up to the task of realistically simulating the type of delay operations conducted in Greece. We have completely rewritten the Delay code. It now deploys multiple blocking forces, leap-frogs delaying positions and manages firebases and support assets in a realistic manner. So COTA will come with at least three BIG features. This will probably come at the expense of the Campaign feature.

We are adding in a swag of other minor features. These include an Order of Battle display, enhanced reaction and reassessment code, more map terrain layers and types, plus a whole swag of other AI and UI changes.

However, please note the caveat in the first sentence - ie "we are constantly reviewing what features we can and cannot include in our next game". In the final analysis I think everyone will realies the incredible value for money they will be getting with a product that once again will push the boundaries of operational warfare simulation.

We do need to release this game soon ( we need to eat [:)] ). However, we will not release a product that is not solid. We are aiming for February but this may slip. It all depends.

[HercMighty]

I personally would rather have the campaign mode wait. All the other options will make the campaign mode even more worth it when it is incorporated after COTA. And seeing the ability to incorprate all new features into past versions means really I will not be missing out on this feature in my current games.

[pahom]

I agree. The campaign will be a wonderful feature, but the supply system was what I was hoping for. I'm ready to order.[;)]

Pahom

[pahom]

Any possible chance of a little taste of these new features? An in-development screen shot or two? Of course, I understand you are very busy and don't want to slow the game down. But if you get the chance ...

Thanks

[Arjuna]

pahom,

We're just reorganising our resources files and have only just received our new GUI graphics. Once we get these done I'll see what we can show you.

[Golf33]

It's pretty hard to post a picture of stuff like mixed-mode movement since it's very much 'under the hood'. Here's the best I can do, for now: the movement tables from one of our maps, taken in the MapMaker application. White shows impassable terrain, black shows unrestricted terrain, shades of grey show various graduations of restriction. You can see from the shot the quite different areas passable to motorised and foot movement, and also the effect of mountain slopes.



Regards
33

[pahom]

Arjuna,

Thanks so much. Looking forward to it.

[pahom]

Golf,

Thanks for the pics. That terrain is absolutley brutal. I cannot imagine what it is going to be like slogging through the mountains with motorized units and the additional concern of supply. The system has added so much complexity since HTTR. You make it very difficult to go back to playing the "ancient" HTTR.[:)]

Is it still on tap to incorporate the new features into HTTR as an additional package?

Thanks again

[Arjuna]

Eventually. But I want a holiday first. [;)]

[El Savior]

More realistic supply system was first in my wish list. It sounds COTA will be again giant leap in war games. February doesn't sound bad either. I bought War in the Pacific two weeks ago and certainly this will eat my free time. I was (secretly) wishing that COTA will arrive later next spring. I will buy it no matter what date is it release, but can't find enought time for two games.

Now when better supply system is included is there a hope for better air support? [:'(]

[Golf33]

Better air support - would be nice in a future game but definitely not in COTA - we've got enough work to do already!

BTW the map shown above is the Pindos Mountains, where the part of the initial Italian attack occurred in October-November 1940. The whole map is about 37 km wide and 38 km high, which gives you an idea of the scale of the terrain.

Regards
33

[SeaMonkey]

In the context of the remark, "We need to eat", I'll offer the following suggestion. Since the supply, delay and mixed movement codes will be added features it seems logical that the next progression with added features would be the campaign mode. Concluding that possibility leads me to the assumption that the North African theatre would be next game subject for this truly innovative system. I know BftB was slated to be the next subject, but in view of these new features and the need to test and tweak them, this theatre holds the easiest transition for the developers, giving them a deserved semi-break. Logically the next evolution in this engine would then proceed to BftB, Normandy, and then lastly the East Front, for the air combat features, and finally into the Pacific for the naval-air-amphib. operations.

[pahom]

I would love to see this game eventually in the desert, but on the scale of the entire African Campaign. I know that there are restrictions of current computers with a game of the complexity of this one. Is a theatre sized game possible with this system in the somewhat near future? Would this be something the team would even consider taking on? If near future technology permits?

With the immense progress made in scale and features since the last game, I can only imagine that you would want to test this system on an even grander scale next time.

Thanks.

[pamak1970]

After researching the Greek campaign we also came to realise the severe constraints imposed upon both sides by the supply systems. To really simulate this properly we need a more realistic resupply system. Again this is a major feature in its own right.

Perfect!!
I was thinking since the beginning that the supply system is more vital for COTA than the campaign feature.
I do agree with other members that this system is a big step forward for better operational games.
There is one thing i would like to point to game designers for future consideration (not COTA).
Although i have heard about plans to simulate more accurately other aspects of combat like counterbattery -close support and so on,
for me the really BIG innovation which will give a totally new dimension in operational level simulations, would be the incorporation of Zones and boundaries between major formations (brigade or division and above).
I think in ALL operational games until now (with the exception of Patriot in 1994!), players have the unrealistic ability to mix in the same area, units from multiple formations without any cost to pay.
The allocation of boundaries in reality is a reflection of the operational maneuver and is always a part of an order for the execution of every mission (attack-defence-advance or retreat).
Divisions operate in narrow zones along the main axis and in wider zones along secondary ones.
Violations of boundaries by some units demand a coordination between adjastent parent formations ,therefore they need additional planning time or else we might have disorganization or even friendly fire against the violators.
The same thing applies during passage of lines operations (both forward and rearward), relief operations and so on.
it is also known that boundaries between major formations are attractive targets for an operational attack along them, since the attacker tries to get a benefit from the lack of coordination in this area between the units of the two different parent formations.

I understand that this type of feature is difficult for game designers.
Anyway i just give my point of view as "food for thought" and maybe as an inspiration for future designs.

[JeF]

Hi Dave,

thanks for the answer. We all needed some info fresh from the mill.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
As always we are constantly reviewing what features we can and cannot include in our next game. When you are at the cutting edge of original R&D you often discover new opportunities to do things better, become aware of things that need to be simulated and hit problems previously not encountered. So one has to have a flexible approach to feature sets.

Don't you think there are too many words to basically say : "We do what we want to do and/or what we find best for the game." [:)]

After researching the Greek campaign we also came to realise the severe constraints imposed upon both sides by the supply systems. To really simulate this properly we need a more realistic resupply system. Again this is a major feature in its own right. We are currently working on this and aim to incorproate it into COTA.

Now we are talking. The simulation proposed by the Airborne Assault system is clearly lacking a resupply system. Even if a lot of things can be improved, this is needed. I'm glad it finds its way into this installment, even at the expense of the "campaign mode". Here is hoping it will not be too complex.

In the final analysis I think everyone will realies the incredible value for money they will be getting with a product that once again will push the boundaries of operational warfare simulation.

[8|]

Again, you use some sort of marketing gibberish. You're on a bad slope Dave. Why no just saying : "It'll be great ! You'll like it !" [:D]

Cheers,

JeF.

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: JeF

Now we are talking. The simulation proposed by the Airborne Assault system is clearly lacking a resupply system. Even if a lot of things can be improved, this is needed. I'm glad it finds its way into this installment, even at the expense of the "campaign mode". Here is hoping it will not be too complex.

Hmmm. Well, the simpler it is for the user, often the more complex it is for the programmer... [;)]

Regards
33

[U2]

I did not buy HTTR because it did not have a campaign system. If this one does not either well you can guess for yourself. Shame...

[JeF]

ORIGINAL: Golf33
Hmmm. Well, the simpler it is for the user, often the more complex it is for the programmer... [;)]

I know. [:)]
This is why I have a lot of respect for the gameplay offered by HttR. And not a lot for traditional RTS or turn-by-turn IGOUGO heavily micromanaged wargames.

U2: you're missing a great gaming experience. Shame...

JeF.

[CriticalMass]

But why did I find out about this from a stranger [X(]. Don't you love us no more...?