HTTR Dev Update

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

Just thought I would keep you all posted on where we are at with the HTTR development. We have just put out build 60 and our intrepid Beta team are hard at work testing some new features, code tweaks and scenarios we have added. New features include a Log of significant activities for each unit. New scenarios include:

1. The Harder Way - a hypothetical scenario in which a heavily reinforced KG Harder must prevent a Guards Armoured drive from Ede to Otterlloo on the Arnhem map.

2. Battle of the Boxtel Bases - each side gets in two divisions worth of random reinforcements at random locations and must fight to secure the most bases within a 20 x 20km map area around Boxtel NW of Eindhoven.

3. Breakout from Joe's Bridge - Ray Wolfe's historical recreation of 30th Corps Breakout from the Neerpelt bridghead at the start of the operation.

Right now I'm just starting on the manuals, including a new Tutorial. Paul is fixing a few bugs and no doubt finding time somehow to polish up or add in yet another small feature. Steve Barnes is working up a new medium sized historical scenario on the German attempts to cut Hell's Highway at Veghel and Koevering. Steve Long is reworking the old Arnhem scenarios using the new company sized force structures and taking advantage of the new objectives code we have written.

At this stage all is progressing well. We're still on track for an August release.

[citizen]

Excellent!

So are ALL the old RDOA scenarios going to be in HTTR?

Is there going to be a single, huge Market-Garden scenario or is it split into 3 only?

Thanks a bunch for the update!

citizen

[Arjuna]

Originally posted by citizen
So are ALL the old RDOA scenarios going to be in HTTR?

No not all. We're getting rid of some of the campaigns, tutorials, templates and the Juggernaut scenario.

Is there going to be a single, huge Market-Garden scenario or is it split into 3 only?

PC processing power just ain't enough to do the full MG op as one scenario. Line of Sight checks and route finding, not to mention planning, would grind the game down to an unacceptable speed.

There will be separate campaign scenarios for the Arnhem, Nijmegen and Eindhoven maps plus there is the Breakout scenario for the Neerpelt map ( which is effectively the campaign for this map ).

Thanks a bunch for the update!

citizen

You're welcome!

[Jane Doe]

You know what would be cool ?...

... To have an in-game (or out) written history of the market-garden operation, or at least of the different area of battles, like one for the 1st ab, one for the 82nd ab, 101st, 30 corps, etc .... Like in TAO2

Another thing that would make me REALLY happy would be to include a map that would cover the entire operation all along hell's highway.

However, i understand that it is only some "à-côtés," but that would still be some significant additions. (at least for me) Between the two. i think the map would be the COOLEST.

Oh, and i'm glad to hear some news about the development of the game and that it's still on schedule. Keep up the good work!

regards,

JD

[MarkShot]

Dave,

Regarding the RDOA scenarios:

(1) Most of the same ones are going to be offered, but with new estabs with more units that takes the command structure further down the chain of command?

(2) I thought some time back on the BTS boards you mentioned the new (deeper) estabs being an option for the Arhem scenarios which I guess would have meant having something like two versions of particular scenarios?

Thanks for clarifying.

PS: I still cannot believe I haven't played the Arnhem campaign yet.

[MarkShot]

One other question comes to mind ... how do the new RDOA estabs change game play?

Thanks.

[Arjuna]

Mark,

I know I'm pretty tired at the moment, but I'm not sure what your questions are in your earlier post. They appear to be statements to me. Sorry.

Re the latest post: we'll have to suck it and see how the new estabs affect game play for the Arnhem scenario.

BTW you had better start that Arnhem campaing before its gone.

[MarkShot]

Okay, I will try to clarify:

#1 - I wanted to know is that a correct understanding. So, where I would have had single unit Bn in the old estab, now I will get HQ, 3 Coy, a base unit, and assorted support units, correct?

#2 - I thought at some time in the past playing with the new estab for the Arnhem scenarios was to be an option as opposed to a replacement of the former scenarios. Now, only the new estabs will be available, correct?

#3 - I simply thought that it was interesting issue as to how does the modularity of units affect the play through a particular scenario. This is both in terms of the granularity of homogenous forces and the separation of special weapons from other regular units.

When I first started playing the game, I had no idea what I was doing. As opposed to now where I have a half of an idea. So, I started with the shortest scenarios to help me along on my learning curve, since the Arnhem campaign is like 9-10 days! So, I suspect that when the HTTR is released, I'll finally get back to working on taking and holding those Arnhem bridges.

---

By the way, I think it's a misconception with this game that shorter scenarios may be easier. They may be, in fact, harder due to tight time constraints and the limitations that imposes on making mistakes and correcting them as you go.

[Mr.Frag]

There will be separate campaign scenarios for the Arnhem, Nijmegen and Eindhoven maps plus there is the Breakout scenario for the Neerpelt map ( which is effectively the campaign for this map ).

Dave, while we all understand the realities of PC hardware, is it possible to at least have some kind of flow in place here?

Ideally, since these campaigns cannot be linked into a single everything version, would it be possible to have some kind of baseline unit availability that governs when units show up?

ie: One blows through Eindhoven's sector. Nijmegen gets early reserves. Nijmegen flops big time, Arnhem gets nothing but airdrops as no one is coming up the road ... I know it's just a pipe dream but ... one can still dream right?

[Arjuna]

Mr Frag,

What you are after is a "campaign" feature where scenarios are linked and the results in one impact another. I agree this would be nice, but it's a big job and it's not going to make this game.

However, I have asked Steve Long, who is redoing the campaign to widen the time range in which the Allied reinforcements arrive from 30th Corps. This will mean that subject to random die rolls the 30th Corps reinforcements may arrive earlier or later than historical. So you just won't know. Choosing favour Allies will bias their arrival to an earlier time, while choosing Favour Axis should result in them arriving late.

That is the best we can do for you at the moment.

[Arjuna]

Originally posted by MarkShot
#1 - I wanted to know is that a correct understanding. So, where I would have had single unit Bn in the old estab, now I will get HQ, 3 Coy, a base unit, and assorted support units, correct?

Yes

#2 - I thought at some time in the past playing with the new estab for the Arnhem scenarios was to be an option as opposed to a replacement of the former scenarios. Now, only the new estabs will be available, correct?

Yes

#3 - I simply thought that it was interesting issue as to how does the modularity of units affect the play through a particular scenario. This is both in terms of the granularity of homogenous forces and the separation of special weapons from other regular units.

It will vary on the scenario. For instance giving a side more units gives them more options. In the original 2nd Lift scenario the Germans have a limited number of Bn sized units. Now they have a plethora of company sized units, albeit operating under Bn HQs. The German player can now easily detach a single company to perform an extra task that previously he could not have undertaken. Moreover, with subUnits, the Bn can cover a greater area on defence if the player chooses to.

On the other hand, companies are more brittle and a Bn at 30% strength can probably sustain an assault more effectively as a single unit than as a series of smaller subUnits.

All in all I think it is a better simulation with the battalions broken down. Certainly more realistic given the ground scale we're using.

When I first started playing the game, I had no idea what I was doing. As opposed to now where I have a half of an idea. So, I started with the shortest scenarios to help me along on my learning curve, since the Arnhem campaign is like 9-10 days! So, I suspect that when the HTTR is released, I'll finally get back to working on taking and holding those Arnhem bridges.

Good to hear. Go for it.

By the way, I think it's a misconception with this game that shorter scenarios may be easier. They may be, in fact, harder due to tight time constraints and the limitations that imposes on making mistakes and correcting them as you go.

Each has its own challenges.

[Fred98]

My understanding is that this is more or less the original game with a lot of improvements.

Therefore I am not concerned if there is no campaign mode.

I would hope that in the next edition, there could be a campaign mode.

As for an example of a campaign, my preferred campaign style is that of Close Combat 2 rather than Close Combat 5.

I say that because a campaign in a narrow straight line seems easier to produce than a campaign spread over a large map.

As for the location, choose any place where a large formation spear-heads a long advance. France, June 1940 would be excellent.

[Arjuna]

Originally posted by Joe 98
My understanding is that this is more or less the original game with a lot of improvements.

Not really. As our beta testers have found HTTR is a significant step up from RDOA. Not only does it look better but it plays so much better now. We have made very significant enhancements to the graphics, AI, interface and force structure. Moreover, HTTR covers four significant battles, not just one, with four times the map area and a much bigger force list.

As for an example of a campaign, my preferred campaign style is that of Close Combat 2 rather than Close Combat 5.

I say that because a campaign in a narrow straight line seems easier to produce than a campaign spread over a large map.

As for the location, choose any place where a large formation spear-heads a long advance. France, June 1940 would be excellent.

I must admit to not having played CC5. I know it's sad, but I just haven't had the time. Could you elaborate on the differences between the two?

[Fred98]

Glad to see somebody in Canberra is working

The CC2 Grand campaign could be compared to driving down the Hume highway from Sydney to Melbourne. With obstacles along the way in the form of bridges that must be taken. In some cases by paratroopers landing ahead of 30 Corps

The CC5 campaign could be compared to splitting Victoria into a bunch of small maps. With a beach landing in Melbourne and an attempt to exit the beach and then to occupy the whole state. Units can move from one map to another as long as they control the road exits to the next map.

I feel that for the purpose of making a game that the first style makes for a more successful game. But as a preference I like the second style.

Again, France June 1940 would be great.

[Marc von Martial]

Yep, I must commit that I allways liked the CC2 campaign style better for some reason. Now you might want to say that anything beyond CC2 was more flexible in it´s campaign system, but for me the CC2 campaign system was more thrilling. Hard to explain, but it was.

[Arjuna]

So I take it that the CC2 system is linear, while the CC5 is more of a network?

I would have thought that the network system would provide greater options and provide more "strategic" decision making.

[Golf33]

Dave, are you familiar with the CC2 campaign structure?

I personally thought the CC2 campaign system was awesome, whereas the CC5 system turned me off after only a couple of games - it just seemed awfully simplistic compared to the great balancing act of CC2.

Cheers
33

[Fred98]

Yes CC5 was more of a network.

My view is that players mis understood it. As I said I prefer it

The linear campaign is easily understood and its easier for a developer to make a great game.

[Mr.Frag]

CC2 basically was completely independant sets of battles with the reinforcement poll directly linked to how well you were doing in other locations (hence my post about some form of linkage of reinforcements showing up based on other parts of the battle).

Sounds like you have done the next best thing, and included enough variance to make it exciting.

CC4/5 implemented a completely new slant with actual battle groups (collections of units under a common command) that could be moved from area to area instead of simply winning the map and influencing other units. Each group had it's own independant pool of replacement units and mix of forces available. Picture it as mini-armies.

It had it's pros and cons, one of the reasons a lot of folks still love CC2 was the level of abuse individual soldiers could take. CC3/4/5 toned down the survivability of grunts. CC3 due to the much larger ranges of map scale was really an Armor game. CC4/5 implemented lots of armor but on small maps where they really had no business being. Not much fun with 88/L71's when armor is 200 yards away instead of 2000 yards.

Due to pathing issues with armor and the compressed ranges, it led to a lot of frustration, hence CC2 being the most loved...

[Arjuna]

Very interesting. Thanks for the low down guys.