ugo igo

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

ugo igo

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> ugo igo

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

ugo igo - 5/8/2000 12:47:00 AM

iggi

Posts: 77
Joined: 4/10/2000
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

Suggestion for W.B. Wilder: Actually, I posted this on the Combat Mission board. I reposting it here to see if there's more interest on the subject here with turn based gamers. Wouldn't the igo ugo system have been better if you only allowed each of your units to move one hex at a time. Example. Say you have three units, A,B and C. Each unit can move say 4 hexes per turn in classX terrain. As it stands now, correct me if I'm wrong, you can move unit A up to it's movement allowence of 4 hexes then do the same for B and C in turn. I'm suggesting to only allow A to move one hex, then B moves one hex then C moves one hex then the cycle is repeated another 3 times to give you the total of 4 hex max movement for the turn. I know that moving your units in this fashion is possible now in SP. I'm saying to make it mandatory. In otherwords you can't move A two hexes, then move B three hexes. You must move each unit one hex until all units are moved one hex then you can return to unit A and move it one hex. You repeat the cycle unitil no movement points are left. In this way no one unit can drive too far forward thus getting info on the enemy without having at least a porportional committment to time as the other units. As it stands now, unit A can gain too much info while unit B 'stands' in time. Unit B is not subjected to any adverse effect of being 'still' while info is gained by unit A. If, as you are cycling between your units in your turn, you don't want to move unit C, unit C will lose x movementpoints. Unit C can still move in that turn when the cycle returns to it if it still has movement points. In this way, C paid a penalty for not moving as it should be.C gave up it's chance to maniulate time with energy to cause a displacement in it's position. Losing a few movement points reflects this. To help a player keep track of how many movement points are left for each unit, you simply add a 1/4,2/4,3/4,4/4 indicator on the counter.Perhaps add a green dot verses a red dot to help attract the players eye to units that still have movement points remaining

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 5/8/2000 2:04:00 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

And I'll post my reply.... True. True. However, iggi, you realize that that will slow down gameplay just like some of the features we've suggested on the CM forum. ------------------ "I am not interested in the names of your fathers, nor of your family's lineage. What I am intersted in is your breaking point!"--Gen. Chang

_____________________________

(in reply to iggi)

Post #: 2

- 5/8/2000 2:42:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

What you describe is similar to what TOAW does. You can run a unit its full movement and fight, but then other units are assumed to have "waited" some time and lose MPs. They don't "force" you do do it and its based on combat more than movement. It works well there, and could work in a tactical game as well. But typially not to the extreme you take it to, for playability reasons OB&G brings up... Plotted simove has its problems of assuming every unit has the the same decision cycle. From a "realism" point of view this can be just as bad (but from a C3 POV, vice the easier to understand time/distance aspect. Neither is "realistic" its just a question of which aspect violates your sensibilities less. Since few understand C3 as intuitively as d=r*t, plotted simove can have its appeal. Real combat is "asynchronous" meaning each formation has its own "turn cycle". THe most difficult thing in combat is sychronizing forces, since each component is operating effectively with a different number of "minutes per turn". Igo Ugo goes overboard allowing each unit essentially "its own turn" in a vacuum from everything else, plotted simove goes to the other extreme and makes everything march in lock step to a "master clock". Reality is in the middle some where. We are working on a system (starting at the operational level) that gets at this middle ground, and hope to bring it to tactical combat some time in the future. Its a tough nut, we'll see how it works out ;-)

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to iggi)

Post #: 3

- 5/8/2000 12:06:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Okay Iggi, since the question was to me, I'll answer the best I can, mainly from personal preference. Thanks for visiting us, by the way. It mainly depends on the game. Here in SP, there is enough action even by the passive side, (opfire, etc) to make it lively. The most realistic is a simultaneous move, similar to what you have in CM. It works well there. Of course, it is a completely different game from SPWAW. It was designed that way from the beginnning. The downside is that once the minute begins, you can do nothing to stop what is happening. Realistic? Yes. Frustrating? Sometimes. Because you see something happening and you can do nothing to prevent it (G). And that is realistic. It just does not always allow me the hands on approach I get in SP. So I'll play both and enjoy both, both for different reasons. Wild Bill ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to iggi)

Post #: 4

- 5/8/2000 11:07:00 PM

iggi

Posts: 77
Joined: 4/10/2000
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

Ol' Blood & Guts:

quote:

that will slow down gameplay

True, however my suggestion was not absolute. Rather a starting point to brainstorm towards better system. Paul Vebber:

quote:

What you describe is similar to what TOAW does

I didn't realise that a similar concept was in that game. Wow, it feels great to think that I thought along the lines of Norm Kroger

quote:

Plotted simove has its problems of assuming every unit has the the same decision cycle.

You know, you're right. All decisions are made at the same time. However, the smaller the time interval in a simulataneous turn based system, the less the variance between the real decision cycles and the artificial one. Good point though because there is a difference.

quote:

Reality is in the middle some where.
quote:

We are working on a system (starting at the operational level) that gets at this middle ground, and hope to bring it to tactical combat some time in the future. Its a tough nut, we'll see how it works out ;-)
I'm intrigued by your initiative to turn the screw one more twist. Thanks for your thoughts.
quote:

The most realistic is a simultaneous move
A relative term(realistic). As Paul stated, there is room for improvement. Of course nothing is perfect and CM comes very close to being balanced.
quote:

The downside is that once the minute begins, you can do nothing to stop what is happening
True, the decision making ability is frozen in time for one minute. Again the smaller the interval of time the less negative effect there is. However, as Paul stated,
quote:

Real combat is "asynchronous" meaning each formation has its own "turn cycle". THe most difficult thing in combat is sychronizing forces, since each component is operating effectively with a different number of "minutes per turn"
These "asynchronus" decision cycles are what make real time games attractive. They create uncertainty and exhilaration. Looking forward to reaching the middle ground.Thanks everyone. iggi John Maragoudakis

_____________________________

(in reply to iggi)