Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

DEI Question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DEI Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DEI Question - 12/1/2010 4:21:25 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Developing a scenario for the group that deals with the Japanese conquest of the Southern Resource Area. To get it sufficiently grainy, had to delve deep into structure, organization and placement of Dutch units in the DEI. Initial evaluation indicates it is worthwhile breaking up the various organized KNIL Regts into their component Bns and support Coys.

Some of this stuff can find its way into DaBabes, but am concerned about the detail level that campaign players are willing to put up with in the first 6 months of gameplay. The scenario drills down much farther for HQ definitions, so it’s a ‘don’t care’ that there are Bns and Coys running around, but don’t think this detail level is appropriate for a campaign level scenario.

Question is – would people think it worthwhile to have a similar breakdown of Dutch units “with the ability to recombine”, or would it be just too much of a pita and Dutch things should be left as they are in the campaign Master files?


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes
Post #: 1
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 4:29:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 2
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 5:00:55 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

Thanks Kristian. That was a big concern. Within the scenario it works, because both sides are equally grainy, but sometimes we get too excited and forget that things just don't scale all that well.

Ciao, J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 5:10:12 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Well it could be one way in which to upgrade some units more quickly (ie militia to regulars). But on the other hand, if these subunits are spread all over the islands, it would be next to impossible to really recombine them efficiently and could result in serious attrition of Dutch forces (which are already ridiculously weak as in real life). Admittedly they could become a bit of a PITA for the Japanese player because it will be very hard to eliminate all of them rapidly and allow small bases from which the Allies could operate.

Maybe a different approach should be taken here. I believe that KNIL was in fact in the throes of expansion and this should be somehow modeled. maybe unless a particular island fell, some reinforcements would keep appearing (now they dry up in June '42 even if you save the bulk of KNIL forces). Also KNIL and attached HQ's should not be removed from play but should rather be eliminated. Or maybe one can find the intended TO&E and allow such an expansion to happen. Let's face it, even as they are KNIL is extremely weak and its forces are basically outmoded by mid-1942 and therefore won't contribute much to the Allied cause.

I know its not easy but just my thoughts...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 5:25:42 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Like T said, the game engine likes to wipe out small units in combat so the player would just spend time rushing to combine them.

Good thought, though.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 5
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 8:27:57 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		@witpqs
@Offworlder
Appreciate ya'lls comments. They reinforce Kristian's. Well worth hearing. Thanks for taking the time to chime in.

As to the scenario, nobody upgrades (never understood how a militia squad could become regulars, anyway) and there are no pools, and there's no replacements. The Dutch have to play it out with what they have on opening day. The Japanese, too, have to play it out with what they had, and their forces are also decomposed to Bn level (for the most part).

This is a very interesting period of the war for us (and theater, for that matter), because the forces on both sides were relatively small and the operational space was relatively large. This permits deployment of smaller units within our scenario scope. Can certainly understand how detail is NOT appropriate for the campaign scenario.

Thanks again for ya'lls comments. Ciao. J



_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 10:13:34 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Thats what I did as well in the Burma Scen John

No units can be reformed to Divs so the max scale is Regt or Bde and most units start as Bns or less.


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 7
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 11:09:05 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

Thanks Kristian. That was a big concern. Within the scenario it works, because both sides are equally grainy, but sometimes we get too excited and forget that things just don't scale all that well.

Ciao, J


It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 8
RE: DEI Question - 12/1/2010 11:18:05 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		The key thing is to keep Divs out of it whichever side has the Divs wins in these arttritional battles

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 9
RE: DEI Question - 12/2/2010 5:01:59 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Or flattens the other guy, if he only has battalions.

Anyway, would be a difficult scenario to score in the context of the engine.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 10
RE: DEI Question - 12/2/2010 7:56:27 AM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		A scenario like that JWE is proposing would essentially be an extended colonial campaign, where small forces took on each other. Therefore whoever possesses the best troops will prevail. By my reckoninig the only place where serious resistance could be made by KNIL would be on Java proper (where there are at least 2 regiments present and several militias too). From an Allied point of view, unless the Australians are included in the mix, the Allies would have little chance of surviving, let alone winning. 

What would be nice is to know what forces the Japanese committed to these campaigns. I'm under the impression that only small forces were initially used, supplemented later on by units who had concluded the Philippine and Malayan campaign. I guess the air and sea committment was also limited as well.

BTW if I'm not wrong, there isn't much difference in performance between militia and regulars in KNIL. So its more of a cosmetic change in a way...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 11
RE: DEI Question - 12/2/2010 1:30:18 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

It’s very possible. Since it doesn’t make sense to incorporate these things into the campaign scale, a couple of the guys want to go whole hog and split the arty out too. It would be interesting to see how that plays out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Or flattens the other guy, if he only has battalions.

Anyway, would be a difficult scenario to score in the context of the engine.

Oh, yes, both sides are at the same echelon levels. The folks have their own scoring system for this one. Agree the engine would probably choke on it. Since I’m building the scenario, they won’t let me play; they say I know too much about where I buried all the bodies. But it will be fun to watch this go forward.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 12
RE: DEI Question - 12/2/2010 8:15:03 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Some people have asked if this scenario will be available. At first, I thought no, but on second thought, why the heck not. This isn’t for everyone, it’s pretty strict and requires a completely different play style. For example, all the arty is pulled out separately; that means it might not get whacked when its infantry attacks unless it’s selected – something new to consider. There’s a few other things going on, but nothing that can’t be figured out.

The scenario starts on Feb. 1, 1942, and runs for 6 months. It starts with Japanese landings at Kendari and Ambon (a few days later than irl). Under the initial conditions, the Japanese have already taken Brunei, Sarawak, Tarakan and Menado; Singkawang has just fallen and the remnants of the Punjabis are beginning their epic retreat to Sampit.

Luzon has been mostly cleared with the US/PI forces on the Abucay line. The Visayas/Mindanao forces remain, but Davao is occupied. Malaya is occupied, with the remaining forces contained in Singapore. Singers AF cut to a 2 (Kallang was the only one left) and 90% damaged (judged unusable on 8 Feb.).

Units in Malaya and the PI are reduced to their (mostly estimated) historical levels of ‘effectives’; Brigades to Bns, Provisional Tank Brigades to platoons, artillery almost non-existent in the Southern PI, and severely depleted elsewhere. Allies get nothing. Nothing builds, nothing replaces: no men, no guns, no planes, nothing – except those sqdns and units historically introduced into the toilet. Japanese forces are similarly reduced, but have a scaled build/reinforce capability.

Certain units (on both sides) will appear, from time-to-time, in ‘directed’ convoys to specific destinations. These are intended to be non-negotiable. Once they get to where they are going, the gloves are off.

So if this is the kind of scenario people are willing to deal with, I wouldn’t mind posting it.

Oh, and it's PBEM or H2H only.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 13
RE: DEI Question - 12/2/2010 8:53:43 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Could I have a look John ?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 14
RE: DEI Question - 12/3/2010 4:51:20 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Sure thing. Soon as it's done I'll send you a copy. Woof ! this is like rooting for truffles in a minefield ! having to tweak every OOB I come across !

Nice thing is I could set up Kawaguchi and Oka's barge movement from Luhan island to Jessleton and Sandakan; sort of set up their expectations for their utter failure in the Solomons. Good opportunity, here, to introduce the 48th Anchorage Company and the 118th Land Duty Company (a split-off from III/3rd Shiping Eng. Regt.) and its associated barge transport TF.

[edit] oh pooh, should have mentioned, it's got a bunch of base and map edits, so it uses a unique pwhex file, too.

< Message edited by JWE -- 12/3/2010 4:55:50 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 15
RE: DEI Question - 12/3/2010 10:34:24 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

It’s very possible. Since it doesn’t make sense to incorporate these things into the campaign scale, a couple of the guys want to go whole hog and split the arty out too. It would be interesting to see how that plays out.



Not sure if this doesn't make sense for the full campaign. It is doable (technically), only a little bit work-intensive.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 16
RE: DEI Question - 12/3/2010 11:21:38 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 17
RE: DEI Question - 12/3/2010 11:33:13 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		I hope you release it, even PBEM.

The only way people will learn about the historical actions in these out of the way areas is by playing them.

In a GC PBEM, history has been so twisted by player decisions that these campaigns may never happen.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 18
RE: DEI Question - 12/3/2010 11:45:53 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle


Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/3/2010 11:46:11 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 19
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 4:04:41 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.

In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.

The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.

Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.

Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.

Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.

So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on.

Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 20
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 4:22:40 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.


Completely agree with Terminus on this one. While the current system does leave some historically defended bases undefended, breaking them down would have the effect of leaving all the bases undefended...

"He who defends everything defends nothing." --Sun Tzu

Most players would just have a PITA recombining all those units to defend the points he/she wants to...extra work for no extra benefit IMO.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 4:47:25 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Sorry John I wasnt clear I was responding to K's point about preferring the whole enchilada at that scale I was pointing out given the Ais issues at co ordinating units it would struggle.

AI can cope with small scale units in smaller scenarios as it requires less co ordination.

However I am well aware that your scen is not intended to be v AI and thats fine I still want a look when its finished ;)

Andy

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 22
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 5:09:53 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 23
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 6:14:17 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I think the way you laid it out does a fine job presenting the scenerio(s). While the game is packaged as stratigic/operational level, the scenerios you will be presenting are on a different level. Not quite tactical and not quite operational. There are people in our community that will relish the chance to defend the DEI and accept the fact that they will be dealing with problems they didn't have to in the core game. While its not my cup of tea, I believe this will be welcomed by those that enjoy a "George Custer" kind of tactical challange.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 6:30:30 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.

In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.

The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.

Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.

Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.

Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.

So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on. Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.




JWE -

I am fired up as I read all of the above - this is very exciting! I usually play H2H solitaire; but have not thought of approaching a scenario as you describe in the last paragraph; I most certainly will give this style a go.

Awesome stuff - please keep on it; I am very interested in trying this one on for size. Am especially intrigued with the thought of separating the arty for the reasons given.

Gents -

All of your comments and insights are informative; let's see what a small unit scale scenario can do - the Babes Team is up to it!

Mac

" I am easily satisfied with the very best."

Winston Churchill



_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 25
RE: DEI Question - 12/4/2010 8:30:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.


On a web page with a short write-up describing what's with the scenario. The forum is ill-suited for that. If you like I can look into one of the freebees like Google Sites.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 26
RE: DEI Question - 12/5/2010 5:57:29 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The post above gives some of the reasons I hesitate about making the scenario generally available: the play style required for the paradigm is radically different from stock. I can imagine people downloading this, having their usual expectations, getting culture shock, and giving it all up as a bad job.

Our developmental scenarios are just that; short time period, small map, specific operations, and are eminently suitable for commensurate operational bifurcation of OOBs. But they require a bit of knowledge, on the part of a player, to flow efficiently.

So, just how do we present these scenarios? Comments welcome.


Sounds like a training scenario for DBB, if it can't be sold on its own.

However . . .

I don't think any game has ever been hurt by the submission of intricate user designed scenarios trying to model particular match-ups of forces in some large or small corner of the world. It's not like AE seems to needs a lot of help, but shorter hot-box scenarios might still attract a lot of grogs that may not feel they have the time for long campaigns. Back in the day such things were sometimes sold as add-ons with games fixes/improvements thrown in.

And if it's an ant-level scenario with the available engine, it might be better not to put too much emphasis on building units bigger than ants. Seems to me that the fun of this scenario might be trying to cover a lot of ground with nothing but ants. Other scenarios could look like covering an ant-farm with an armadillo and two porcupines, though that might not work out exactly outside the PTO.

Personally, for this game, I prefer one day orders. But if there is some thing about the two or three day time frame that you like, then make it part of the scoring system -- if that's possible. That is, if something has to happen in two or three days, give me each intervening day to figure out how to get there or face the consequences of not getting there.





_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 27
RE: DEI Question - 12/5/2010 12:41:50 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle


Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.


I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 28
RE: DEI Question - 12/5/2010 12:44:45 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		PBEM yes could be lots of micro management though

Its probably to detailed for me personally but for a lot of folks it could be interesting and it would probably work

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 29
RE: DEI Question - 12/5/2010 6:17:21 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle


Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.


I was merely wondering if a (PBEM) grand campaign scenario with the whole OOB (for all nations) on a regimental scale (without the ability to combine the stuff into divisions) would be a worthwhile thing to do (well, Chinese divisions would remain divisions, but they're mostly at a corps scale, currently).


Kereguelen -

I certainly hope so!

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DEI Question Page: [1] 2   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

3.609