Perspectives on two awesome sims, Command Ops and Flashpoint Campaigns

[Chicharito19]

Well, I've been playing the demos for both Command Ops and Flashpoint and can't seem to make up my mind. I like both...but can't get both at this time.

One thing I want to learn from playing these sims is about tactics both offensively and defensively. I don't necessarily WANT to micromanage, but will do so if the need arises. So I do like that nature of Command Ops.

But at the same time I've played more of the Flashpoint demo...it's something about it. It's very intense, but also tiring because of it. heheeh I am becoming more comfortable with it though.

I hope its appropriate to ask what your thoughts are on these two fine games. Ultimately it is my choice, but I'd like some perspectives if you don't mind. Thanx for your help.

[dazkaz15]

Well I'm biased, and I've never played Flashpoint so my vote goes for.....

Command Ops [;)]

I have had so many hours play out of this game now it has to be the best value one I have bought to date.

The only other one that comes close is Hearts of Iron 3.

[Phoenix100]

I asked in here about Flashpoint, recently, and received very helpful responses (as always). This thread: tm.asp?m=3522202

Though you probably already know what it's like, I guess. I didn't go for it in the end, and said why here; tm.asp?m=3524785

I'm a bit stupid, maybe, but I really don't see why the maps can't be accurate and why there have to be hexes and stuff that make games look like they're board games. Ditto obvious turn systems. I've been spoiled by BTFB, I think. Because it really does feel like it's 'simulating' something, to a certain extent, such that when you turn to the actual history and read about the battles you've been fighting, everything makes sense.

But Flashpoint comes very highly recommended in here, including by someone on the dev team, as you will see in the first thread there.

I will say, it sounds like you crave a scaleable command system and BFTB is the ONLY land warfare game that really has that, I believe.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: phoenix
I'm a bit stupid, maybe, but I really don't see why the maps can't be accurate and why there have to be hexes and stuff that make games look like they're board games. Ditto obvious turn systems. I've been spoiled by BTFB, I think. Because it really does feel like it's 'simulating' something, to a certain extent, such that when you turn to the actual history and read about the battles you've been fighting, everything makes sense.

Because ultimately these are just games with rules. The fact that the abstractions are at different levels doesn't make the simulation any less relevant (in fact I'd argue that less abstraction is likely to make your game less realistic - because the deeper you try to simulate something the more factors you are either going to forget to incorporate or incorporate badly).

Both games are fundamentally about the same thing - trying to get inside the decision making cycle of your opponent. BFTB does this by having a real-time system where there's a planning delay attached any orders you give, Flashpoint does it by having a turn-based system where the turns-between-orders is variable and different for each side.

I think they're both really interesting and have a unique enough riff on the same idea to be both worth getting. As Matrix games they're both priced a bit more than I'd usually be comfortable paying, I already have BFTB so I won't be getting Flashpoint until it gets a price drop, but if you have neither you might want to go for the cheaper Flashpoint straight off.

They both have demos which is awesome, I suggest you play about with them and see which one grabs you more.

[Phoenix100]

I realise it's only my quirkiness about hexes and inaccurate maps, Alchenar, and I absolutely agree with you that at a certain level where there's less abstraction there's in fact less 'realism'.

[Alchenar]

If I'm honest I have trouble really grasping terrain in BFTB. LOS is always awkward. Being higher is better? Maybe? Being in woods/towns gives a cover bonus? How big should the 'box' my unit takes up be? It's something I find really unclear and I appreciate some of the simplification that hexes grant in letting me know what the lay of the battlefield is.

[wodin]

Working out LOS in CO is one of the biggest challenges..However the only time I really check is when setting up on the defense. When on attack I muddle through and don't pay it to much attention as it is very tricky to really work out accurately.

Oh and yes being higher should give you a bigger field of view.

[Phoenix100]

By the way, where's the Flashpoint demo to be found? I haven't seen that anywhere.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

If I'm honest I have trouble really grasping terrain in BFTB. LOS is always awkward. Being higher is better? Maybe? Being in woods/towns gives a cover bonus? How big should the 'box' my unit takes up be? It's something I find really unclear and I appreciate some of the simplification that hexes grant in letting me know what the lay of the battlefield is.

This might help you grasp terrain and footprint in BftB:

-- Evaluating the LOS based on both terrain height and cover can be obtained by using the LOS Tools, one representing direct LOS to a point, and the other representing the potential LOS masking effects at a specific point on the map (both, with judicious use of the "threat" tool can identify any unit's observation capabilities to support friendly fire, and its status regarding enemy unit capabilities to observe / fire on it);

-- Terrain benefits or detriments to both movement and cover from fire can be evaluated with a right click at the map point being evaluated; and

-- The manual explains what is represented by the on map box portraying a formation, "Footprint and Facing -- When a unit is selected or highlighted, a white perimeter box will show that unit’s footprint – the rough outline of the area occupied by the troops of that unit. The open side of the perimeter box indicates the rear of the unit. This is useful for checking that units are deployed into covered terrain, that they do not overlap, or that the gaps between units are not too large."

How much to use the tools is dictated by the level of situational awareness the human commander requests of his on site subordinates before making a combat decision for his force, pretty much the same way an operational commander would consider seeking / handling his subordinates' feedback.

Hope this helps.

[dazkaz15]

I would have much preferred the maps to look like the image below, to be honest.

This is the type of map I was trained on, and can look at it, and almost instantly know where would be the best place to site an OP (observation post).

That was quite a long time ago now, and technology has moved on.

My current preference would be an overlay on a Google Earth map, that can be rotated, zoomed in, and layers removed etc.

I don't know why the current map style was chosen? Simplicity, cost of the licence to use a better one, maybe?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
This might help you grasp terrain and footprint in BftB:

-- Evaluating the LOS based on both terrain height and cover can be obtained by using the LOS Tools, one representing direct LOS to a point, and the other representing the potential LOS masking effects at a specific point on the map (both, with judicious use of the "threat" tool can identify any unit's observation capabilities to support friendly fire, and its status regarding enemy unit capabilities to observe / fire on it);

-- Terrain benefits or detriments to both movement and cover from fire can be evaluated with a right click at the map point being evaluated; and

-- The manual explains what is represented by the on map box portraying a formation, "Footprint and Facing -- When a unit is selected or highlighted, a white perimeter box will show that unit’s footprint – the rough outline of the area occupied by the troops of that unit. The open side of the perimeter box indicates the rear of the unit. This is useful for checking that units are deployed into covered terrain, that they do not overlap, or that the gaps between units are not too large."

How much to use the tools is dictated by the level of situational awareness the human commander requests of his on site subordinates before making a combat decision for his force, pretty much the same way an operational commander would consider seeking / handling his subordinates' feedback.

Jim beated me to answer these concerns regarding LOS etc. Nonetheless, if somebody can make an specific remark about some LOS-related query that feels particularly awkward to assess on Command Ops, we're happy to hear about it. Making sure that the player gets the information he/she needs (which is not the same as what he or she might want) in a clear way is something we're concerned and care about.

I would have much preferred the maps to look like the image below, to be honest.

This is the type of map I was trained on, and can look at it, and almost instantly know where would be the best place to site an OP (observation post).

And you can to some extent get that feeling. All you need is to redefine the map graphics, which are entirely moddable. Having the option to highlight contours is something which perhaps is necessary to address. Adding an obvious visual cue indicating the height, sounds like an interesting feature, yet I'm not sure it can be implemented in a satisficing way so that it's not the poor map designer the one who has to determine where those height values appear.

One thing that we're trying to do consistently on all the Eastern Front maps is to make sure that all the tactically relevant heights marked on the historical maps are transcribed.

My current preference would be an overlay on a Google Earth map, that can be rotated, zoomed in, and layers removed etc.

Licensing is important, indeed. Not to mention that we'd have to say goodbye to many 20th century scenarios - if we want to keep a modicum of historical accuracy - other than those we could find an extensive aerial map photo database. Just go and take a look of the approaches of Stalingrad on Google Earth and on a 1940's topographical map. Or compare a 1944 map for Santa Maria Infante with how it looks today.

I could agree with a 3D representation of some sort being useful to appraise the lay of the land easily. But just as a tool for visualizing relief, this is not a tactical simulation nor a Napoleonic game.

[Arjuna]

A little history. We started designing this engine in 1995. That was before Google Earth existed. It was before there were industry standards for GIS data formats. The existing formats at that time didn't provide what we needed. Some were closed and we could not add our data that we needed for the AI - eg firepower influence data. Others were open but used up too much RAM or disk space. Remember back then RAM was in short supply and so was disk space. So we opted to create our own format. I acknowledge its limitations and I do want to overhaul our GIS but that is a big undertaking.
 
Ideally we want to move to a situation where we can import industry standard formats like DTED for spot height, ESRI Shape files and VectorMap files for our terrain data and bitmap rasters for overlay. We will still then need to augment and convert these because we need to add to these our own specific data for AI purposes - influence, control and concentration maps etc. I do want to see our GUI updated so we can have many more layers and be able to provide users with a 3D flythrough of the op area.
 
But all of this will require a significant investment of development funds that we don't have. We don't make enough from these games to pay decent salaries. So it's a case of developing over time as we can. It's slow going but I think our track record of continual enhancement stands for itself. We will get there in the end but it's going to take time.
 
BTE if anyone is in a hurry and has deep pockets please contact me.[:)]

[Chicharito19]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

By the way, where's the Flashpoint demo to be found? I haven't seen that anywhere.

Although the contest is over, I assume the site still works:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3504554

Thanx for your answers gents. Much appreciated.

[Chicharito19]

Thanx for your help gents. I decided to roll with Command Ops. Great sims...tough choice. I went with the historical content of Command Ops.