Matrix Games Forums

Hi all,

Well, for the last little while it looks like this forum has been gradually quietning down (more to play the game than write about it I'm sure)...... and since it's now less than 5 months to Christmas..... maybe its time to open a COMING SOON forum for Battles for the Bulge!!
[&o][&o][&o]

Rob. [;)]

<G> is there no rest for the wicked. Boy, I must have been wicked.&nbsp;[;)]
&nbsp;
I'll ask Erik to get one set up after they come back from Gencon in a few weeks time. Will that suffice now. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

<G> is there no rest for the wicked. Boy, I must have been wicked. [;)]

I'll ask Erik to get one set up after they come back from Gencon in a few weeks time. Will that suffice now. [:)]

Hi,

Absodamnlutely!!! [:)]

Yup, there is probably a lot of truth to the old adage about paying for the sins of our past lives in our present one.

Rob.

Yeh but I probably know that much of this karma is from my current life. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Yeh but I probably know that much of this karma is from my current life. [;)]

[:D][&o][;)]

Battle of the Bulge? What is the Airborne op in that? Or is it going to be an all new scenario?

I guess a few German special forces were involved, but if thats the case.....

Hows about New guinea? With the Nadzab airdrop covering the airborne component?

Or just drop the Airborne altogether and do the Western Desert/Vichy french Syria, etc etc? Malaya/Singapore? France 1940/Norway? China WW2?

WW1? The East African campaign with Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck?[:D]

Anything but the overdone Late Western/Eastern fronts?[>:]

After all, we are wargamers here. I am certain that attempting to pander to the 'casual' game area that many cough 'wargames' makers do in which no US personnel to be seen equates to dead sales....isn't necessary here?[;)]

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
Battle of the Bulge? What is the Airborne op in that?

The 101 in Bastogne come to mind [;)]

Seriously : the "Airborne Assault" moniker dates back a couple of years to the Red Devils over Arnhem game. The operational scope of the engine has seriously expanded since those days, but keeping the "familiar" moniker makes sense. At least up until COTA.

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
Or just drop the Airborne altogether and do the Western Desert/Vichy french Syria, etc etc? Malaya/Singapore? France 1940/Norway? China WW2?

Arjuna has outlined the road ahead a couple of times already, but I'm sure he'll manage to copy&paste it again. [;)]

The next game is the Bulge ... done right. Sure, the Bulge has been done to death, but it has never been done in an engine like this one. There's a reason the Bulge is so popular : it's Barbarossa in a month : both sides get to attack and defend in turn, wildly different possible strategies, a lot of possibilities for out-smarting and out-maneuvering your opponent and lots of possible what-ifs.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

The next game is the Bulge ... done right. Sure, the Bulge has been done to death, but it has never been done in an engine like this one.

You speak the truth. I've been a student (and gamer) of this battle for over 30 years, and the things that pop out at me as the maps and scenarios are developed at this scale are quite fascinating. You can really see how and why many parts of the campaign developed the way they did.

And if all goes well there will be a scenario included in BFTB with an actual airborne drop- a 'what if' scenario featuring Kampgruppe Von der Heydte.

Pieter

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi all,

Well, for the last little while it looks like this forum has been gradually quietning down (more to play the game than write about it I'm sure)...... and since it's now less than 5 months to Christmas..... maybe its time to open a COMING SOON forum for Battles for the Bulge!!
[&o][&o][&o]

Rob. [;)]

It has gotten a bit quiet. I'm not playing as much because of a couple nagging CTD's on my laptop. The game still has my attention though ;-D

Re series title. In hindsight "Airborne Assault" was a bit limiting. I'm toying with changing it to "Command Ops" which is more apt I think. What do others think? Got any other suggestions for a new series title?

I think you should keep the title Airborne Assault when you produce games that deal with massive airborne ops, and something like Armour/Land/etc Assault for games that deal with normal army units ops. But nothing with "Panzer" in the title, please...[;)]

I personally like the Command Ops name... as that is really what this series of games is about.

ORIGINAL: Bil H

I personally like the Command Ops name... as that is really what this series of games is about.

Hi all,

I agree....... Command Ops is a better description.

Rob.

Command Ops sounds good. Though, since you already have a 'franchise' on your hands, why not just creating a new one rather than just replacing the old one completely? If you're planning on releasing games on a semi-regular basis, having two franchises could help with the more casual wargamers not feeling overflooded by one series ("another AA game? I just bought one, I'll pass... Oooh, Command Ops by the same devs, maybe I should try this out"). Of course, it's a pretty flawed argument.

How about Armchair Assault? [:'(]

Also, is BftB on track for a Xmas release?

I suppose 'Battleplan' series is too close to the upcoming 'Battlefront' from SSG....

Command Ops is fine, it just reminds me of a Tom Clancy novel or something. But don't worry about me, I am a very picky bastard.[:D]

I will tell you what you should NOT call it? Alien Druglords: Battle of the Bulge. Just sounds....sinister and corrupting.[;)]

Re is BFTB on track for a Xmas release. Well we are a little behind schedule. I'm still spending most of my time on the patch. Nearly there. Just finished a major recalc of all the maps to fix the visibility bug that prevented the LOS Area tool from displaying more than a kilometer out on some of the maps. My compiler is working ovetime due to a low level change in our PodDouble class. This should eradicate the second last bug on my list.&nbsp;I then have just one more to go.
&nbsp;
However, the Panther Dev forum has been very active as we discuss how we're going to handle minefields and roadblocks. We've recruited TheCapt ( Warren Mirion ) back onto the team and he is enlightining us on all things engineering ( he's an engineer officer with the Canadian Defence Force ).
&nbsp;
Paul has about another two weeks to go before he finished the overhaul of the forceGroup classes. This will see forceGroups being represented as tree lists rather than the current vectors of attachments and detachments. While a tad slower in some areas they will allow us to better represent cross attachments at lower levels. If we have time we may be able to allow users to adjust the organic structures within the Game.
&nbsp;
Once the patch is out I will be starting on the AI routines for handling minefields and the associated engineering tasks. Paul or Dan will then have to add a drawing function into the ScenMaker so we can lay down minefields. At this stage, given the time, we will only allow placement of minefields in the ScenMaker - ie not in the Game. You will be able to clear them within the Game though.

My knowledge of the Bulge is somewhat cursory, but wouldn't the besieged Paratroopers in Bastogne have relaid mines during the night? (Like say the tobruk garrison).

I myself am a sapper in 5 CER, but you would be better off sticking to the knowledge of the Captain methinks.[;)]

Command Ops is fine. Ive been playing Red Orchestra alot recently. I will return to CoTA though.

Personally, I think leaving out laying of minefields makes them a "bit" redundant...I say a bit because I mean NOT COMPLETELY redundant.
&nbsp;
For me, in a scenario, I would like to lay a minefield to funnel the enemy or hinder them. That option is now being taken away, or at the very least, seriously muted. I know it's down to time, but I think it seriously degrades the point of minefields from a user point of view.
&nbsp;
I would like to have my engineers lay a minefield wherever I tell them...a bit like how the lating of charges and disarming of charges is performed...timing etc. I know it's a bit more complicated...perhaps a lot more...but without this facility, what's the use of having minefields as "the next big feature"?
&nbsp;
If it's included in the scenario maker, then the porition of the minefields is "pre known" meaning they serve little purpose because they can be circumnavigated. All it takes is someone to have played the scenario before to discover where the minefields are and that scenario is unplayable. If the engineers were allowed to perform this on the fly, then they could be placed anywhere and the scenario becomes a challenge again.
&nbsp;
At the very least, if not during the course of play, then the user should have the ability to place the minefields at the scenario start.
&nbsp;
I do understand why you would want the next phase out so fast, Dave (we all have to live), but I think by doing what you are suggesting the minefield option is being seriously undermined. (no pun intended)
&nbsp;
My tuppence