advanced squad leader

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

Ran the 200 meter test in Squad Assault. Took the fastest guy out of a 5 man group 90 seconds to run 200 meters down a road. The slowest, the one with the BAR, ran it in 150 seconds. Not all RTS's are so bad after all.

E

What was their fatigue level at the finish line ?

Oops…….. never mind, fatigue was not modeled in EYSA.

my bad

[FlashfyreSP]

Until a computer 'port' is developed that can accurately implement ASL's rules, such as Bypass Movement, Multi-Level Buildings, and true LOS determination, all this is moot. So much of the ASL Rulebook would prove difficult, if not impossible, to code that it makes no sense to argue which current game is 'closest' to it.

[old man of the sea]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

Ran the 200 meter test in Squad Assault. Took the fastest guy out of a 5 man group 90 seconds to run 200 meters down a road. The slowest, the one with the BAR, ran it in 150 seconds. Not all RTS's are so bad after all.

E

What was their fatigue level at the finish line ?

Oops…….. never mind, fatigue was not modeled in EYSA.

my bad

You can move squads every turn in ASL and they don't get fatigued. What's your point?

E

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

You can move squads every turn in ASL and they don't get fatigued. What's your point?

E

My point ?

My point was a follow up to your post and the other half of realism you did not model in the SA engine. [;)]


To much homebrew E [:D]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

Ran the 200 meter test in Squad Assault. Took the fastest guy out of a 5 man group 90 seconds to run 200 meters down a road. The slowest, the one with the BAR, ran it in 150 seconds. Not all RTS's are so bad after all.

E

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

"You can move squads every turn in ASL and they don't get fatigued. What's your point?"

He must not play ASL, or he would already now about the portage points aspect of the design, or possible the double time rules and becoming CX.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Until a computer 'port' is developed that can accurately implement ASL's rules, such as Bypass Movement, Multi-Level Buildings, and true LOS determination, all this is moot. So much of the ASL Rulebook would prove difficult, if not impossible, to code that it makes no sense to argue which current game is 'closest' to it.

Currently my XASL engine supports true LOS down to pixel level. Multi Story buildings will be in later (only 1 level buildings so far), though currently I can check LOS on maps that have elevations levels, like say ASL Map 2. I Don't know much about Bypass movement yet so I can't comment on it. The problem with ASL is the size of the rulebook and when you add HASL modules with additional rules...never mind each scenario having it's own SSR - it's a bit too much to do when a publisher doesn't really want to support that kind of heavy development which is required when we are talking about ASL. You also have expensive licesing issue...I would have to live 300+ years to implement it all. From my point of view ASL is a game, though a very good and deep one (I like it very much), it's not a war simulator. XASL currently currently only supports ASL Starter Kit rules though I plan to add more from full ASL as time will go on, for example Snipers more weapons etc. XASL will also have true fog of war, something you can't simulate on a boardgame.

Peter

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla


XASL will also have true fog of war, something you can't simulate on a boardgame.{snip}

Peter

How to simulate FOW on a board

I was introduced to ASL in the Army, but what we use to do, is run three game board/s at the same time.

One each for the opposing forces (we would have up to four players per side)

And one main board for the judge and combat resolution or counters out of FOW.

What a BLAST

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

"You can move squads every turn in ASL and they don't get fatigued. What's your point?"

He must not play ASL, or he would already now about the portage points aspect of the design, or possible the double time rules and becoming CX.

Kind of scary considering CC was in the early days a attempt to port ASL to the PC screen.

No wonder it never worked out [:D]


LMAO !

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

All things considered, if, I could snap my fingers, and make it happen, that being to make every last current ASL counter be represented in as much detail as was offered in the basic Squad Leader box, I'd make it happen.

Squad Leader was great, where as, I think ASL is just a great deal of game.

If I was attempting to port anything to computer, it would be Squad Leader as just Squad Leader, and not even so much as Cross of Iron add ons.
IF I was able to make that work, THEN and ONLY then, would I start day dreaming about making it more complicated.

And I likely would attempt to make is sans AI on the original release. Because, it would be more useful to see if the design even worked, before pretending I could make the machine play it half decently.

As it goes, I'm still not totally done with my pet project notion of doing just that, back dating every last ASL counter (mostly vehicles and guns of course) to basic Squad Leader conditions.
This will mean of course, that a lot of counters end up looking like the same vehicle, different picture on the counter.

So what. It's more important to have a Churchill tank on the counter, when it was a Churchill tank that was there, than to have a counter that is statistically different looking from 10 other allied tanks.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla


XASL will also have true fog of war, something you can't simulate on a boardgame.{snip}

Peter

How to simulate FOW on a board

I was introduced to ASL in the Army, but what we use to do, is run three game board/s at the same time.

One each for the opposing forces (we would have up to four players per side)

And one main board for the judge and combat resolution or counters out of FOW.

What a BLAST

WOW, cool stuff

[Sarge]

Yes, way cool stuff [8D]

The only problem we ever ran into was coming up with five player minimum. Which fortunately there were enough ASL fanatics on base that was rarely a issue .

2X Birds (players)

2x Runners ( Link between your board and the Judge board)

1 Judge

Each opposing force had designated “Runners” that would relay intel coming in from the Judge board.

So see , as a player “Bird” you would never see the judge board till the end of the game. You would only see counters your Runner would report and the reported results from the judge and mark accordingly .

This was a problem at times due to all the beer being consumed by the runners

+=

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

This was a problem at times due to all the beer being consumed by the runners

+=

I guess that's all part of a war, S*it happens [:D]

[ravinhood]

This was a problem at times due to all the beer being consumed by the runners

+=

That is soooooo frickin funny! How I do remember the days of arguing the rules of boardgames seeing that. lol That's the greatest thing about computer wargames....takes out those rules lawyers by the thousands.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I played Squad Leader ONCE when I was in the army.

I was in basic training. I played my platoon sargeant. I beat him. He locked my game up and made me realise a worm besting his platoon sargeant was an incredibly stupid person.



That game reeeeeally cost me.

[Ocelotl]

But as we see time after time, this small insignificant technicality is brushed aside in this repetitive debate. Substituted with a quick jab at the intelligence of the turn base player along with the denial that the whole foundation of the game engine is flawed in its most basic building block.

Ahhh flawed at its most basic building block... sounds more like wishful thinking to me...Your example of A game that does not represent men getting fatigued only represents, well... that particulargame... and you seem to be assume that all RT games are modelled in such a manner, but you are wrong.

Its amazingly easy to color everything with one brush stroke. Yet in most cases its inaccurate, unfair, and biased.

CC for example, represents units being CX ed, counter exaustion if I recall. Infantry units which run fast for an extended period of time first become winded (also fire from said unit is less accurate) and if they keep running and constantly moving they will eventually become fatigued and WONT move at all but will defend if attacked. So so much for "the whole foundation of the game engine is flawed in its most basic building block" idea. May be true for some games but not for all...

But alas, this thread is pointless. Some people just dont like change and it really isnt my job to convince unwilling people to try something different or to think differently. You can argue all the points you want but I havent read anything in here that convinced me to change my opinion on this subject.

Thankfully, judging from the comments I ve read by others in this post, your opinion, attitude and intolerance dont really represent the majority of the people in this forum. Heh, or at least I hope not...

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Ocelotl

Its amazingly easy to color everything with one brush stroke. Yet in most cases its inaccurate, unfair, and biased.

one brush stroke ?

Ok count off the RTS titles that have any resemblance of real world physics. One or two titles is the exception , not the rule.

CC for example, represents units being CX ed, counter exaustion if I recall. Infantry units which run fast for an extended period of time first become winded (also fire from said unit is less accurate) and if they keep running and constantly moving they will eventually become fatigued and WONT move at all but will defend if attacked. So so much for "the whole foundation of the game engine is flawed in its most basic building block" idea. May be true for some games but not for all...

OK thats 1 that you are aware of [:D]

But alas, this thread is pointless. Some people just dont like change and it really isnt my job to convince unwilling people to try something different or to think differently. You can argue all the points you want but I havent read anything in here that convinced me to change my opinion on this subject.

Thankfully, judging from the comments I ve read by others in this post, your opinion, attitude and intolerance dont really represent the majority of the people in this forum. Heh, or at least I hope not....

That’s RICH [:D]

Standing on your soap box screaming my likes and dislikes are irrelevant and un-realistic and in turn should pull my head out of the sand and embrace RTS as my savior .


My attitude ?

I didn’t make RTS a four letter word, the developers did that all on their own. [;)]

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Ocelotl



Ahhh flawed at its most basic building block... sounds more like wishful thinking to me...Your example of A game that does not represent men getting fatigued only represents, well... that particulargame... and you seem to be assume that all RT games are modelled in such a manner, but you are wrong.

PS:
Prove to me otherwise, show, list or even provide a link to this game your playing that has a RTS engine that will put this argument to rest.

Enlighten us closed minded turnbase players

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

The first is that it really is what a large number of potential purchasers actually want.. even when they are perfecltly well aware of the alternatives, and not usually as hostile to them as ravinhood ..............[ ] At the tactical level the form is pretty much dying out to be replaced by games such as CC, CM, PC, Armored Task Force, CotA, etc but the Airborne Assault series really takes that as far up the scale ladder as it can go (its largest scenario is just about equatable to TAOW's smallest).

The recent AA title (COTA) features 40km x 50km scenarios max.
While it might focus on the Bn level, you can still issue orders on a divisional level, but u can even control things down to single Coys as well. The game factors in many real world issues (e.g. fatigue, supplies, vehicle movement, type of terrain, LOS, terrain levels (altitude layers)), and although it's 2D and still uses counters, it feels and plays rather like a military simulation, then a game, or boardgame. You might be right, indeed, these types of games may prevail eventually.
The majority of wargames is still hot for turn-based games though, for reasons I wouldn't get. One of the most interesting challenges in real-time games (I do like the term "continious play" here) is the fact that you have to react / adapt to the AI's or the human opponent's tactical decisions in real time.... the real world wouldn't allow for a coffee break either, would it? hehe
That's been one reason for me thinking that turn-based games lack realism, and for hex-games not working for me, in general.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

The very sight of grogs arguing in mile long threads about penetration of some gun vs some armored vehicle, while *completely* ignoring the fact that game gives you *unlimited* time to think for your next turn - how very funny and symptomatic of "grog disease" [8|]

lol... I agree there

ORIGINAL: Sarge

With the absences of real word physics in a continues time engine, how is any level of realism achieved. After all wouldn’t you think this element would take the lead in development on this so-called quest of realism.

Well........ while Company of Heroes can be seen as commercial entertainment thingy for the masses, it features real world physics in a real time environment. PaKs would hit fences, trees, or telegraph poles, if placed inaccurately, most of the environment (houses, trees, tank barriers, hedgerows, etc.) can be destroyed/passed, and shells/bullets are computed with real world physic modules running in the background (havok engine). Soldiers/squads cover behind barricades/objects, and obstacles would hinder the movement of light vehicles, or even tanks.

Ok, it still has the typical unrealistic RTS-approach, you spawn/build troopers and it features that darn resource management, but engines like this (using havok physics) may be the future, and it would be interesting to see some more serious (realistic) games like that. There might appear games that would deserve the term "battlefield simulation" eventually.
On a sidenote, recent FPS games, e.g. Call of Duty 1/2, MoHAA, are somewhat realistic regarding the presentation. They manage to create somewhat realistic battle experiences (closer to reality than any other type of game at least), acoustically and visually.

The CoH 3D-approach, coupled with CoD acoustics and visuals (explosions/textures), may be the future .... due to today's technical limitations, these kinda approaches may only feature squad-based games, but with the technical progress there might be some games featuring a bigger/different scale in let's say 10 or 15 yrs.
Although CoH is a darn commercial approach, and a frickin' RTS clickfest, it might point to a new (or additional) general direction for future wargaming, in terms of presenting and using an environment.

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Substituted with a quick jab at the intelligence of the turn base player..........[]

Well, I wouldn't say turn-based players are dumb .... but i do tend to think that they're are lazy, or let's say that it looks like some of them can't cope with a real-time evironment.

A gamer mastering a clickfest-RTS might rather put up a simple neuromuscular skill, with him having minimal grasp for analytical, tactical and strategical approaches in most cases, but mastering a serious continous-play simulation, where the player has to adapt to the opponent's (be it an AI or a human opponent) moves and decisions in real time, will seperate the wheat from the chaff, like we say...that's where versatile/bright ppl, or true military buffs, will stand out, imho.

Although I liked games like Steel Panthers to some extent, any turn-based game will remain a joke for me, if it comes to the task to render battle environments.
I liked the Close Combat Series, because, although being limited in many ways, they featured many real world factors a turn-based hex game would never include, no matter how many "accurate" penetration/armour values and what not such a hex-game would carry on its (given) fat feature list.

EDIT: I wonder when there'll be a (war) game that features speech recognition.... dunno, let's say in 10 or 15 years. Instead of being a clickfest, a given game would accept spoken orders via speech recognition .... it could simulate a commander giving commands via radio [:D], would be a neat gimmick. [8D]

[Ocelotl]

I once beta team for a RTS title and ran a test . IIRC it was a 200 meter dash, the game engine did it in 15 seconds never mind the fact the troops showed no fatigue as it was not even modeled . But anyway the world record is something like 22 seconds, in running apparel , not 10-20 pounds of battle-rattle in combat boots clutching a rifle in tall grass.

In my previous post I was referring to this comment by you regarding a RTS game.

My argument has always been about CC not any other particular RTS game. Also I am not pretending that some/most RTS games are unrealistic (tactically or historically) just that the engine has something to offer. I am hopeful that game designers will sieze on this and give me what I want which is a tactically historically accurate game in real time thats not a FPS. BTW I think CC does a great job at this.

Also, despite previous comments I still like and will play/buy a good turn based game. Nor do I think turn based games are for morons. I just think the attitude of some in this forum borders on Luddism.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy



Although I liked games like Steel Panthers to some extent, any turn-based game will remain a joke for me, if it comes to the task to render battle environments.
I liked the Close Combat Series, because, although being limited in many ways, they featured many real world factors a turn-based hex game would never include, no matter how many "accurate" penetration/armour values and what not such a hex-game would carry on its (given) fat feature list.

Care to elaborate, how about a list.

1) No Turns

Is there any I left out [:D]