Southern Storm Engineering

[mb4329]

Has their any consideration given to implementing a slightly more detailed engineering/breaching model?

Given how critical breaching barriers (both man-made and natural) would be to an actual conflict set during the period and location modeled in the game, having a slightly more detailed engineering model would be great. Thinking things like units with mine plows and bridging equipment suffering possible loses to all or a portion of that equipment, and the appropriate degradation to mission, as they take combat loses. I always find it a bit maddening to watch a Pact company under fire and reduced to a single runner, bridge just as effectively as a full strength company not engaged in combat. Given the priority of fires that any bridging equipment would have in those engagement some degradation and elimination of that capability would be likely and welcome in the game.

Also, while I understand the Pact forces would try and front load their units with things like plows and bridging gear, lets face it resources are always finite and you never have gear in the in the quantity (or condition) you wish/need. If significant abstraction is going to be retained (which is fine) having an ability to specify the total number of these key pieces of equipment in a generic pool that the units draw from as needed would be great.

As always thanks for the great game and continued development effort, been a big fan going back to the original and I have appreciated how each version gets better and better. Looking forward to seeing what changes are implemented in Southern Storm.

Regards,
Merrick

[CapnDarwin]

Merrick, we are planning on adding a more fidelity to the engineering model. Finite mission assets is one thing we want to add. Other things like mine plows will take some thought as to how to implement and show in game.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: mb4329

Has their any consideration given to implementing a slightly more detailed engineering/breaching model?

No subject gets more discussion time than combat engineers. I was one. So, yes, we fully understand the weight and importance of the engineers. We also understand that abstracting things won't always sit well with everybody, no matter how we do it. So, we'll do the best we can that shows the capabilities of engineers without turning the game into a combat engineer simulation. Which is what I was warned we would not do in my very first discussion with the coders. [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

[mb4329]

Hi Mad Russian,

Abstraction is OK as long as reasonable balance is there as well. At the level the games plays at not being involved in the minutia makes sense.

Merrick

[cbelva]

Most people don't realize that it is the abstractions in the game that makes it work as well as it does. There are games out there at this scale that is less abstract than Red Storm, but they are painful to play because of the delay and slow pace. They try to account for everything and it really slows the game down since our computers today still can handle all the computations needed. The reason that Red Storm can play at the pace that it does is due to the abstractions in the code. Abstractions are ok as long as they give realistic results. We have worked hard to make them so--and from the very beginning have debated and tested and debated/tested some more.

As we push forward with Southern Storm, we want to add more features and realism to the sim. However, I have warned the team that I will be brutal on them in regards to gameplay. If the game does not play as well as Red Storm, I will not be happy -- and they will hear about it. New features and realism is great, but not at the expense of playability. That is why certain things are abstracted out.

[Rincovsk]

Cbelva, interesting points. I totally agree with you on this. Gameplay and playability are aspects that I find some of the strong points in Red Storm, indeed. I do also love the easy to play and hard to master aspect of it as well. Cheers