Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi all,

Just a quick word from me. Basically the follow up on the release of Case Blue went quite well. There have been some bugs, but a number of patches has adressed them quickly.

I am currently completing a big new feature patch for Advanced Tactics adding some random officers to Advanced Tactics' its random games. Once that is finished I'll start on a new patch for Case Blue.

For Case Blue there is a small list of little bugs that need fixing, as well as some further finetuning i'd like to do. Especially as more player feedbacks keeps coming in I get some good pointers where i can improve things. Big thanks to everybody voicing opinion, making AARs, reporting issues and giving suggestions.

However i am looking forward to get to work with adding some features as well. I am thinking of 3 new features:

* Give the AI strategic sense on the big campaign maps. So that for example the Soviet AI will actually give ground at the start because it will realise standing and fighting at this force ratio would be unwise if it can also retreat for 1 month and receive 200k extra trooops. I think a lot can still be gained on improving especially the defensive AI in long term play (standing and fighting is actually good in the short scenarios).

* Allow for manual transfers between units for those who want to have the ability to do some micro-management. (annoying problem here is i dont think i have any button space left for a new order and i might have to do some redesign to create more space on the orderbar)

* Make a simplified version of the editor so that people can actually make their own simple scenarios on any front without to much problems. I think there is still a lot to be gained here in replayability of the game. The engine is quite flexible and I would love to see user-created scenarios.

Kind regards,
Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Vic these changes sound great.

One question: I'm actually interested in using DCCB as the op layer for a tactical metacampaign, but to do so I would have to be able to revise save-game files (to reflect the results of the tactical battles). Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way to do that now, and don't expect to be able to do so any time soon. Is that correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I have always been somewhat skeptical about the value that is put on 'experience' in war games. My reading suggests that, for a majority of formations, the more combat experience troops have the more cautious and less inclined to fight they become. They might have higher survival rates, but these are generally a result of them being less inclined to act boldly.

'Fanatical' units aside (and they are always in the minority in any army) well trained or elite but green troops are the ones most likely to drive forward regardless - think 101 or 82 Airborne in Normandy or the RM Commando operations on the French coast. In terms of 'attack value' I would put a lot more store in a 'green' unit of Paras, SS, etc. than in even the most highly 'experienced' unit of regulars. In fact, one British division in Normandy gained so much experience that it had to be disbanded after its members refused combat.

For most soldiers experience and battle fatigue go hand in hand, and the addition of green replacements (as long as they have been properly trained and equipped) should boost combat strength, not reduce it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Sounds interesting..what game would you play out the tactical battles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Vic these changes sound great.

One question: I'm actually interested in using DCCB as the op layer for a tactical metacampaign, but to do so I would have to be able to revise save-game files (to reflect the results of the tactical battles). Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way to do that now, and don't expect to be able to do so any time soon. Is that correct?

quote:

Thats correct 76mm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keunert

years ago i read a book on this issue. it argued that with every winter and counter offensive the Wehrmacht lost a lot of their experienced officers and soldiers. from 42 on they lost in overall experience due to the high losses of the Ostfront.

i agree with redmarkus, there are lot's of games modelling experience in the extreme. Panzer General was one of them. this is a little strange, given that the Soviets, Brits or whoever had soldiers in the field with the same amount of time on the battlefield.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demjansk

Is there a good video tutorial of this game? I have the game but never play it, thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keunert

years ago i read a book on this issue. it argued that with every winter and counter offensive the Wehrmacht lost a lot of their experienced officers and soldiers. from 42 on they lost in overall experience due to the high losses of the Ostfront.

i agree with redmarkus, there are lot's of games modelling experience in the extreme. Panzer General was one of them. this is a little strange, given that the Soviets, Brits or whoever had soldiers in the field with the same amount of time on the battlefield.

Exactly - great point! You LOSE experience during combat (due to casualties) as much as you gain it. Well trained replacements beef a unit up. Poorly trained replacements lead to a lowering of combat value. So, the key differentiator is the quality of the trained replacements - the troops on both sides in the field both gain/lose experience in similar ways, so that should balance out. At least in game terms, that's a model I can live with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I'm not saying it isn't a factor, just that it may be over-stated in many games. In my mind, training is a much bigger differentiator between opposing forces than experience. At the extreme end of the spectrum compare the performance of so many third world militias, some with many years of real combat experience under their belts, against a properly trained but 'green' first world army. First world wins almost every time, at least on the conventional battlefield, and this isn't only down to equipment and logistics. ...


... You LOSE experience during combat (due to casualties) as much as you gain it. Well trained replacements beef a unit up. Poorly trained replacements lead to a lowering of combat value. So, the key differentiator is the quality of the trained replacements - the troops on both sides in the field both gain/lose experience in similar ways, so that should balance out. At least in game terms, that's a model I can live with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I love the linked campaign and wish there where more of them. I'd happily buy DLC that is a linked campaign of a certain army though the campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

...

Did Russian Guard divisions get 'dumber' due to casualties? Or did they get better and better as they fought, incorporating new replacements and training them 'on the job'?