Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign

 
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 >> SPWaW AAR/DAR >> RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/23/2006 8:56:58 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Exactly, azraelck.  The element of individual initiative IS represented in the game, with morale and experience, so C & C isn't necessary. 

Now, the ultimate would be clicking on each unit and designating an objective point, like Close Combat, and then let the combat go. 

SPWaW's C&C routine was a primitive attempt at this, but it's too limited to be enjoyable.  


(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 121
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/23/2006 1:27:59 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erwin,

I think FlashFyre's intent was to create a simple Long Campaign format that provides the most difficult challenge. 

Playing with C&C ON is clearly more difficult than playing with C&C OFF. 

Did FlashFyre get everything right?  No.  But I think most of the errors/oversights/omissions he made were due more to time pressure since he was getting ready to leave for India.

He did get many things right, though, in terms of creating very difficult and challenging Long Campaign format.

Here are the main issues/problems I see in the FlashFyre template:

1.  Reduced Squads should be OFF because playing with Reduced Squads ON actually favors the human player and not the AI.
2.  Reduced Ammo should not be used because it hurts the AI way more than it hurts the human.  Limited Ammo ON is the most difficult challenge for the human player.
3.  Instead of all 6 major nations, the Long Campaign should only be played with Germany, Britain, and US Army.  Japan and USSR and USMC don't really have any allies and so should not be allowed.  Further, the concept of playing only with minor allied units of the major nation selected needs a LOT of clarification and refinement.
4.  The issue of what to do with build points between battles (in terms of unit changes and unit upgrades) has not even been addressed and needs some serious attention.
5.  The issue of core composition needs some serious attention in regards to questions like:  should there be limits to the amount and kind of artillery allowed in the core?  should there be limits to the amount and kind of specialist units allowed in the core?  etc.
6.  Non-standard tactics (airdrops, infiltration, etc.) should be prohibited for the human player.
7.  Mines and barbed wire and dragon's teeth should be prohibited for the human player.  Mines should be ON, though, to allow the AI to use them (but never the human player).
8.  Airstrikes and on-map heavy artillery and rockets should be prohibited for the human player.



< Message edited by vahauser -- 9/23/2006 1:31:47 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 122
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/23/2006 4:42:18 PM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		I never could get Close Combat, at least the first 3, to work. Of course, by the time I bought them they'd been long since eclipsed by newer games and systems, and of course as a M$ product, was designed to be obsolete, and incapable of working with newer systems. Much like everything else M$ makes. :P I'm just glad I didn't pay much for them.

I think a "phased" combat setting, where you give your orders, then each unit seeks to achieve those orders on it's own each turn would be neat. In that case, even the best plans of attack could not be guarenteed, because you would not have direct control over the units, and it wouldn't limit the units movement to some oddball line of advance, and a singular, set objective with no room for imporvisitation. But, as strategy games are a niche market, and TBS games even more so, I doubt that'll ever happen.


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 123
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/23/2006 11:42:35 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Erwin,

I think FlashFyre's intent was to create a simple Long Campaign format that provides the most difficult challenge.

Playing with C&C ON is clearly more difficult than playing with C&C OFF.

Did FlashFyre get everything right? No. But I think most of the errors/oversights/omissions he made were due more to time pressure since he was getting ready to leave for India.

He did get many things right, though, in terms of creating very difficult and challenging Long Campaign format.

Here are the main issues/problems I see in the FlashFyre template:

1. Reduced Squads should be OFF because playing with Reduced Squads ON actually favors the human player and not the AI.
2. Reduced Ammo should not be used because it hurts the AI way more than it hurts the human. Limited Ammo ON is the most difficult challenge for the human player.
3. Instead of all 6 major nations, the Long Campaign should only be played with Germany, Britain, and US Army. Japan and USSR and USMC don't really have any allies and so should not be allowed. Further, the concept of playing only with minor allied units of the major nation selected needs a LOT of clarification and refinement.
4. The issue of what to do with build points between battles (in terms of unit changes and unit upgrades) has not even been addressed and needs some serious attention.
5. The issue of core composition needs some serious attention in regards to questions like: should there be limits to the amount and kind of artillery allowed in the core? should there be limits to the amount and kind of specialist units allowed in the core? etc.
6. Non-standard tactics (airdrops, infiltration, etc.) should be prohibited for the human player.
7. Mines and barbed wire and dragon's teeth should be prohibited for the human player. Mines should be ON, though, to allow the AI to use them (but never the human player).
8. Airstrikes and on-map heavy artillery and rockets should be prohibited for the human player.



all good points except

"3. Instead of all 6 major nations, the Long Campaign should only be played with Germany, Britain, and US Army. Japan and USSR and USMC don't really have any allies and so should not be allowed. Further, the concept of playing only with minor allied units of the major nation selected needs a LOT of clarification and refinement."

USMC doesnt have any allies?
How about the Phillipines Or Anzac.
May not be historically correct per say, but still could be used.
USSR can use the Polish LWP forces in 43, or Romania in 44 and even the Bulgarians late in the war, altho it would not be that 'long' of a long campaign using the Bulgarians.

Alas Japan is on their own.




< Message edited by Alby -- 9/24/2006 12:29:30 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 124
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 12:32:34 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Alby,

I think you would agree that this aspect of the FlashFyre format needs a LOT of refinement and clarification. 

There really are only a few clear cases where you can pick a Major Nation and then pick a minor ally and conduct a truly reasonable and Long Campaign.  For example, I just can't see any minor ally fight as a USMC campaign in such places as Guadalcanal and Tarawa and Iwo Jima.  I just can't see it. 

Also, how long does a campaign have to be for it to be a Long Campaign?  The war lasted 6 years.  I'm thinking that you need at least 2-3 years to be counted as a Long campaign.  Again, not many minor allies can provide that length.

All I'm saying is that this aspect of the FlashFyre format needs a lot more work.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 125
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 12:51:25 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		My simple point is, why does anyone need to establish any restrictions at all?  I have my own set of rules for campaign play, and the whole point of the game is to maximize flexibility for individual customization. 

My own rules don't allow for unit upgrades at inappropriate times --  in other words, the conversion from my USMC 1942 "D" series OOBs to the 1943 "E" series is done across the board.  Infantry squads first. 

BAR squads (which were disbanded), next.   They convert into bazooka or MMG teams, which in turn can later become assault teams.

Next are the platoon and company HQ units, and then the battalion HQ.

The infantry ALL get new weapons (M1 Garands, carbines), so everyone takes an experience hit.    

The tanks are upgraded last. 

The Marines are unique in that their infantry is prevented from becoming super-soldiers by this yearly reorganization, until maybe late 1944. 

I enjoy watching the transformation  -- within four years, these inexperienced youngsters may turn into an unstoppable killing machine, with the best weapons that mid-20th century technology can provide to them.  

The satisfaction I gain is sort of a personal reassurance, which is difficult to explain without taking the thread into other territory.  

(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 126
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 1:02:30 AM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline 		Gunny does it historically, and I like that.

except he doesnt let the AI use mines...




_____________________________



(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 127
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 1:23:09 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erwin,

You ask the question, "why does anyone need to establish any restrictions at all?"  And then you go on to discuss the restrictions you youself use.  I have no problem at all with how you personally want to play.

But the whole point behind this thread asks this question: "What happens when more than one person wants to play an 'ultimate challenge' type Long Campaign?"  And I would add to that, "And how do you do that when you can only use a minor ally of Germany, Britain, and US Army?"

Once you take USSR and Japan and USMC out of the mix, that changes everything.  Agreed?

Alby made a comment that I'm not clear on.  He said you play your USMC campaign with Mines OFF.  Did I read Alby's comment correctly?



_____________________________


(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 128
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 4:03:12 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


Alby made a comment that I'm not clear on.  He said you play your USMC campaign with Mines OFF.  Did I read Alby's comment correctly?




Yes, that's correct. In the Pacific War, mines were not laid in the fashion as they were in the ETO -- the terrain often prohibited the establishment of minefields in the European sense.

The Japanese, at least from late 1943 - onwards, use their points in construction of hardened defenses (pillboxes, bunkers etc) and artillery emplacements, plus a strong beach defense of infantry units -- this is the trade off for not giving them mines.

All you gotta do is try a generated amphibious assault in 1944 or 45.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 129
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 4:34:28 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		Gunny don't be such a FELION, I got something like 7 battles in the marine camp. I did that the jap AI gave me mines,, and only 2 beach assaults of the 10 I did where mined so give it a chance??!!

< Message edited by Riun T -- 9/24/2006 4:35:37 AM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 130
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/24/2006 7:34:36 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		I don't use mines myself either, mostly because it becomes WWI. Given the limited timescale of the game, a thick mine belt can take so long to clear paths through that I've actually ran out of time, without really engaging or being engaged. It turns into more an annoyance than a threat, unless you try to bulldoze through it. It's not historical, nor is it as difficult, but it doesn't take 20 turns out of 32 to be able to actually engage the enemy forces. That's why I'm looking forward to my Airborne campaign; I can drop behind the enemy lines, and possibly take out the on board artillery and rear VHs before hand. If I'm playing a battle with 60 or so turns, it becomes less and issue, because I have the time needed to clear paths through the mine fields, and can still make a battle plan that doesn't involve needless slaughter of my troops.  

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 131
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 9:32:59 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		OK, monday afternoon and I can finally post the end of the Luzon fight,the vis was 7 and raining.
I had a question about the way the AI,JAPS in this campaign don't really have a core of anything except the HQ and all other units have an "S" behind their formation in the roster,,,, SO wouldn't they be considered "FRESH" resources for that HQ's supposed CORE??? and wouldn't suffer any reduced squad,deductions upon entering this battle as FULL squads???and wouldn't get reduced or limited AMMO because their ALL fresh to this core fore this individual battle???THEY DON"T HAVE TO REPAIR BETWEEN BATTLES EVERYTHING AFTER THEIR CORE HQ UNIT IS CONSIDERED FRESH AND WON"T BE DEPLEATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE prefs set all on,,,




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Riun T -- 9/26/2006 12:15:34 AM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 132
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 9:39:59 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		This brings up the question of experience #'s again,,, LOOK closly at the diferance in mine to the japs,,especially the boundry of what was considered their staple units of SUPPORT POINT FURNISHED experience for what can always be thought of for AI's perposes as the first fight that the supporting units have done in the campaign????




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 133
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 9:50:00 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		GO back to the first battle and compare those japanese force # and pay attention to the fact that it had 75FG's as what counld again be considered by the roster and lack of the little "s" beside the roster formation identification# TO BE CORE????




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 134
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 9:56:41 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		AND how in the first battle I had ALL the VH's and had killed their HQ,,,, so even without tallying up how many fewer casualties I had???for a delay for the japs I would consider they LOST




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 135
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:13:40 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		There are drastic differances too in how the AI interperates the score yes,, but shouldn't it give more credit to whats left on the field and where??? not just casualties and # of VH's held at end of battle??




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 136
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:15:53 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		You'll see what I mean with the maps VH coverage that I show after japs CORE???




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 137
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:17:11 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		and HOW OUTNUMBERED WAS I ON THIS LUZON FIGHT?????




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 138
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:19:16 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		ALL OF U PICK OUT HOW MANY OF THE 75mmfieldguns the japs used in the first battles CORE??? are present in this luzon jap core???




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 139
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:25:13 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		I'm tryin to show for ALL of our benefits that ITS going to be really hard to finish this FULL campaign and that this is a much better effort at settings of the PREFERENCES,,, to make completing the whole campaign EXTREMELY CHALLENGING!! having the C&C on is just one of the things Va is overlooking when it comes to other combined SETTINGS for either the AI or my playing!!!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 140
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:30:26 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		I'm tryin to get some consolidation from my surviving forces to my HQ's location in the back VH's and pulling everything back from the centre 5 VH cluster,which you can see theres NO chance of my retaking,,,but I held for 22 turns of the fight..




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 141
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:34:54 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		I called for reinforcements at turn 14 when I had lost 80% of the forces I had trying to take and hold the centre VH's with and used some italian armoured APC's and JAP armoured APC's with a troop of assie commandoes and platoon of canadian commandoes trying to rush to the beleagered central force!!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 142
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:40:34 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		85% of the relief reinforcements where destroyed between turns 18 when they arrived in proximity of rear of centre VH's and 25 when the canadian commandos tried to backup another push with the gurkas being driven off the southern group of central VH's shown last picture




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 143
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/25/2006 10:43:37 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		That last pic was actually their enemy HQ held VH group{observe minimap}this is the southern group of 4 VH's that even reinforcing didn't retake!!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Riun T -- 9/26/2006 12:00:50 AM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 144
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:02:14 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		and now my repair points screen,, first my core




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 145
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:03:44 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		and how outnumbered was I again,and fought to a DRAW???




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 146
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:04:28 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		LOOK at the #'s




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 147
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:05:39 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		LOOK at my casualties!!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 148
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:06:54 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		Last of my stuff and feel free to comment anyone??




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 149
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 9/26/2006 12:07:50 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		Heres my repair points




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SPWaW AAR/DAR >> RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844