Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Victor.  I also read your very good guide about the game and I have a very similar wargaming background to you, so I see all of the things you are achieving or trying to achieve with your design.  I think it's great so far, and I hope you get enough positive feedback from other players to keep you 100% motivated! 

One key thing I believe you have to decide is whether you are trying to address the (mostly) older board gaming market or the (mostly) younger RTS market.  I don't think you can win with both groups.  So far, I see the direction you are taking as a boardgamer's approach, but adding the real time element and the isometric views for realism, while avoiding the RTS click-fest.  Obviously, I like that direction myself, but I wonder where the market will pull you?

An example of how I would like to see the game evolve is in the crucial Air component - how to model the critical effect of air without the RTS-style air attacks currently in the game?  I would suggest that Air should be more abstracted and statistically modelled, with a focus on attrition of all unit strengths, reductions of efficiency and general interdiction of supply, based on who has air superiority, the weather, allocation of mission types, etc.  The players should use sliders or some similar device to define their strategy (% allocated to CAS, Interdiction, Recon, etc.) while air supply values are set by the scenario designer to reflect limited numbers of suitable aircraft.  Units can then be given supply priority by players and have a chance of receiving airdrops each turn if they cannot trace a supply path.  Air drops can also miss and go to nearby enemy units.  Random chance and target detection status (spotted, time since last sighting, etc.) should determine the chance and impact of air strikes.  CAS should have a random chance of hitting adjacent friendly units as well - a common problem.  You might want to consider a separate Air Operations Map, where the players can set their geographic priorities for air operations, so that, for example, they can focus all their assets on the most dangerous enemy movement.  Also, it should be possible to strike bridges and supply dumps to interdict/reduce supply efficiency.

Osprey - I would say that this game is somewhat ahead of where the original Crown of Glory was.  It does need more work, but it's already a fun and educational game if you can look past the flaws, IMO.  CoG never did grab my attention.  maybe I should look at the latest addition again.

Markus

Markus.... well... I need time to read your email. We are really moving to the core of "How to simulate Operation games w/o died traying it"

For me WWII:GC is a pure evolution, I was convinced that introduce the time variable on a Operational game is needed, on turn based I was loosing something, I know RTS = clickfest, but becouse nobody has trying something different, or adding the element for make it easy... example: if you play online but with many Timeout, it is a turn based game!!

But I know the people can not recorgnize our game with anything existing, and that is the problem. Problem for us and the sales ;)... but we did it, knowing the consequences..

Another question:

What element we want to control during the game... in that case Supplies, the Air attack etc... We simplify, Air Attack is a pure support unit to reduce the efficience of attacked units (GC is not a RTS , the battalions are not destroy by an air attack... ). Talking about audience... if we include all, the game is very hardcore, too much. So we decide to simplify, perhaps the best would be to create different game mode, with alternative for gamers that want to control everything and other that just want to play different global strategics... not focusing in every detail.

Another question is. really the Generals had this controls of units.. supply etc during the combats? I do not think that, you say FoW was severe, you have to imagine in those days!! One day I would like to simulate the exactly atmosfere of HQ during the combats... radio message, notes comming from footmen messangers, wrong informations... well a nightmare...

I will back to you regarding supplies, it is quite interesting subject.

Victor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

Back to the discussion of future features, or how to improve GC... We need to see the product like a game that try a zoom out management, more to macromanagement than micro.. spell74 said well in another thread we usually play tactical games or high level strategic games, but few non turn based Operational Games.. Those operationals have a BIG issue: the volume of unit to manage (we are talking about WWII..).
So any new feature must be adapted to and easy and automate way to handled it, or player will die trying that.

Independent or hardcore/soft gamer, the most is the time you have to play game.. probably 2 or 4 hours per week (average). A medium scenario should be playable in this time frame or most of you will be insatisfy.. and I do not say 2 or 4 easy play hours, I mean a "brain game" of 2 or 4 hours scenario...

So basically what could be your average expectation:

- No hiding rule pls, clear and intuitive.
- 2/4 hours by game.
- "Brain" pls, not just click-click.
- Historical context and simulation.
- If I could play online with my friends... it will be great.
- Nice presentation.
- A challenge...

What do you think? ..... I am far away?

Victor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

Hi Markus,
 
We include in the AI parameters to decide when to do some counterattacks even if its mission is defensive.. if not the attack army can just concentrate their troops and let’s go, knowing the AI never is going to attack its flank.. so you need to protect all the perimeters and cities even your are the attack army or you will have a surprise… In Bastogne perhaps we should include some more constraint to the defensive army… but if we know what the AI is going to do… (to defense Bastagne) what could be the challenge of this scenario?
 
Air force: I understand now, it was included in the initial design: we called “opportunity areas”, also we did the same for fighter groups, we called “protect areas”, and working as you say by probability. In any case the mission option must be kept as we need to understand the airforce as support unit. Finally as always we have been forced to decide, and airforce gameplay was sacrificed. I believe these options can be included in the new design if we arrive to find a really good interface, the management time for airforce must be controlled or the global game will be impacted, it is quite similar to heavy artillery management.
Regarding the objective selection: Yes and No, if we include the FoW, the bomber should not know where the enemy is, or if you want to destroy a bridge… I see it like a group of airplane looking for objectives, pending of the enemy’s unit (each unit have a different level of %to be located) the will have a % to find them and of course the area size.
 
Supply: Hey Mark, that is a serious topic, if you limit the supply… well, how many gamers we will lose in the first match… 50%. Lost in Combat. Absolutely realistic, many of the decision were taken based on that, but it must be included as option in the game start options, we can increase the gamer workload so much that it can be boring. And the secret will be the interface of course… intuitive, clear and with main decisions, no micromanagement. Something like you said (priorities) could be nice.
 
Supply, road network; Indeed the supplies have the importance in the game not based in a restrictive model, it is more to focus the gamer in finding the strategic points that are linked with the supplies distribution and the fast troops movement (by roads)…
 
All the best, Victor.