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: Tutorial Thread

 
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.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Highway to the Reich >> RE: Tutorial Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:34:24 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From elmo3:


quote:

Beery,

Interesting discussion.

...snip...

Along the omniscient discussion line, there are other HTTR details which one can ponder as well:

(1) The fog of war only applies to the commander's perception of the enemy. In reality, would you know the location, status, and activity of your own units with total clarity and in real time? I don't think so.



That would be true if you could only be one commander in the game, say the Division commander. Then it would be a stretch for you to know the real time status of every company. Since you can give orders to individual companies you are also considered a coy commander in the game and you would then have a good idea of the status of your unit at any given time.


quote:

(2) The objectives flip state from "achieved" <-> "to lost" and back again without the player always knowing where is the enemy unit within in the control perimeter of the objective. At times, this may key you in to enemy location and movements that you would otherwise have been unaware of.


A very good point. Personally I don't think you should know the status of an objective "with certainty" until the end. If my opponent slips a unit inside the perimeter and I don't see it then I should not be tipped off by any status change.

I believe this is exacly what Beery is objecting to with regard to bridge status. A failed attempt to blow a bridge should not be revealed as it provides information that the enemy commander could not know with certainty until the objective is secured.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 61
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:35:17 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


Thanks. That is indeed my point. These things give the player more knowledge than is warranted. If I screw up, I should have to find out the hard way. I should not have some flashing light on the screen telling me that there's a threat I missed due to faulty planning or lazyness in carrying out a manoeuvre. If I make a mistake on a real battlefield I will surely suffer for it. Why should I get away with such errors in a computer simulation of battle? In order for the simulation to work as a representation of battlefield command, it needs to reproduce, as faithfully as possible given the limits of the system, the challenges a real commander faces. In this case we're talking about a feature (the VP gauge) that actively (and needlessly) prevents such a level of simulation and which actually lowers the immersion, challenge and fun factor given by the game.

Now I'm not saying that we should get rid of it altogether. At least one person believes it's a positive feature (although I'm pretty sure that given the alternative, everyone will eventually move to not using it). But it should certainly be a feature that we can switch off if we don't require it.

When games first started to move away from micromanagement of units, there was an outcry from players worried about the loss of control. But in the end, most players have come to realise that the added realism of such a step forward actually enhances playability (contrary to popular belief, realism and playability almost always go hand-in-hand, and every step forward in gaming has been through added realism). It's actually more fun to be presented with a problem that includes knowledge gaps, and (as Microsoft's Close Combat system proves) it's more fun to be faced with problems of morale. These are features that were ridiculed by the gaming community just a few years ago. Nowadays, every wargame worth the name includes fog of war, morale, fatigue, and limits on the effectiveness of command. HTTR is at the forefront of this revolution in wargaming.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 62
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:36:15 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


Making optional the level of information provided to the player like WinMeter, objective status, ... would not seem to be a big deal.

However, providing lots of realism options which accomodate different play styles, I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

* Pro *

(1) More customizable by players.

(2) Broader market for developer/publisher.

(3) Simplifies learning curve of new players.

* Con *

(1) Causes difficulty in multi-player environments, since it makes it harder for players to make matches.

(2) Makes it harder to develop balanced/challenging scenarios since play balance is altered by realism options.

(3) Lowers the general quality of a software product. As the size of the source code base increases, the number of hours/line of code debugged decreases.

(4) Various options may be inadequately tested. It dawned on me while testing that beta testers tend to be your hardcore players and most likely play at the highest level of difficulty. So, if there are just 3 difficulty sliders with four positions, you can see how many possibilities there are to test and would the reduced options be adequately tested. It kind of made me wonder how any flight sim or racing sim with 20 different realism options ever manages to get adequately tested before being released.

---

Yes, the Airborne Assault engine is evolving and discussions such as these are a good way to get input as to what way the community wants to see that evolution proceed. Of course, I guess it will help when everyone has a copy of HTTR and have gotten hands on experience with the game. Four more days!

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 63
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:36:56 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Arjuna:


Thanks Beery and elmo for the discussion. Good stuff. Keep it coming. I'm sure that once you have the game we'll be having some more lively discussions on other aspects. All this is good for the future.

Only a few days now...

< Message edited by Tzar007 -- 2/15/2004 11:37:59 AM >

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 64
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:37:54 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


We're only talking about one option. The program is done, gone gold, so there's no issues regarding quality. The quality is already there, and removing one dial is not exactly difficult. Presumably it can be done with a simple blank bitmap which covers the VP score.

As for compatability for online play, this is not a real issue. It's one little feature - players can agree on how they will play the game just as they do for any other option (many games have multiple realism options for online play) and it can be set on the server side so no one can cheat. It's not rocket science.

If we can't have the option, I'd have to argue vociferously for the more realistic feature. This is, after all, a serious simulation. Any non-optional feature that prevents the player from getting the most realistic simulation would seem to me to be a watering-down of the product. Let's face it, arcade fans aren't in the market for this product. It is a serious simulation of battle command.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 65
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:38:40 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


Like I said before, this would be a simple change (perhaps optional) that will make the game more fun and more realistic at the same time. It would seem to me to be a win-win for both players and in terms of making the game system more immersive and realistic. MarkShot's responses do not seem to be based in any realistic argument that this proposal will be detrimental to the game. Instead they seem to be based in a fundamental fear of change. I'm just not hearing any real sense of fair consideration for the proposals that we're talking about. Each of MarkShot's criticisms seem to have a sense of desperation about them. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 66
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:39:55 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


Beery,

I am not desperate. I am not firing off any emails to Dave, "Don't take my WinMeter away!".

I am simply trying to raise the various considerations that go into adding or removing features. I like to explore topics in a methodical fashion. Gee, if you got to the end of reading this thread (my AAR) or my other thread (my tips), then you would know that's just way I am. It doesn't imply that I am going to fight to the death against your proposal or that I am trying to give you a hard time. The points which I raise or much more in regards to general game design and evolution issues than the WinMeter thing.

In fact, I believe I had stated that removal of the WinMeter would not really have any impact on the mechanics of the game as far as I know. I really don't want people to go around saying, "that MarkShot ... look he is a beta tester and see how abuses that by trying to impose a WinMeter on us!" I couldn't live with that.

Anyway, I think I'll drop out of this discussion on features as I don't want to antagonize anyone. I am apologize if I have caused you any stress in this discussion.

Take care.

---

{I'll return to this thread if anyone has any questions regarding the AAR or manner of play itself.}

---

Maybe it's time to go practice some French.

Phil, qu'est-ce que tu fais maintenant? As-tu ameliorer apres le post de JeF?

< Message edited by Tzar007 -- 2/15/2004 11:41:42 AM >

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 67
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:42:07 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From elmo3:


FWIW I don't get any sense of desperation in Mark's comments.

Panzer Campaigns by HPS has a number of optional rules that can be implemented or not as players see fit. They were not all there when the series started. Many were added, usually one at a time, as each new game came out. That made it easy for us to test each one thoroughly. Since this sounds like a series in the making, the designers could take a similar approach and add options as they see fit.

I'm not presuming to suggest that HTTR has to be rewritten with a slew of new options. Just that an option to limit victory related info that the commanders in the field would not have had would make the game more fun to play. My desire for that option is based on very limited play of the RDOA demo only. It may turn out to be more trouble than it's worth to add, but if not it would enhance play for people wanting more realism.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 68
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:43:02 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Bil H:


I just skimmed over most of this discussion.. and I must say that I agree with Beery about the bridge information and the victory level. I would prefer a more fuzzy indication of what the current victory percentage is myself. I also agree about the bridge status... I much preferred it when NEITHER side knew whether a bridge was going to be blown or not... it was always a surprise. Much more realistic. Even the owning player shouldn't know this information for sure, that is pretty low-level information for a Division or Corps CO to have.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 69
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:44:00 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Mr.Frag:


Not to take the "win" meter discussion on, but quite often it is feeding you bad information and you relax just as the enemy slides that huge counter attack into the highest VP location on the map and the meter flips into the "loose" position.

In a real time game, you need to be able to pick information up in seconds. Going into the individual VP totals apart from pre-start detracts from that real time appeal. The VP at a glance provides a useful feature instead of you having to pause the real time game and scroll around looking for the VP markers on the map itself and making sure they are held.

If you wanted to mask something, it would be in the specific breakdown report where you can see percentage of enemy destroyed. This is far more telling then the VP meter which is keyed more to On-Screen anyway VP markers.

Count my vote on the Keep side. It saves a lot of map scrolling because when you see a dip or a raise, you know that an offscreen unit just accomplished or failed it's mission without having to scroll around all the time and micromanage.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 70
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:44:59 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


MarkShot reappears

---

Just so there are no misunderstandings of what I was saying (maybe this will clarify) ...

I guess everyone has simply misunderstood me. There are two classes of user configurable options:

(1) Display

(2) Game mechanics

My point was that display changes are straight forward and implementing them will not really impact the product in a significant way.

Game mechanic options are totally different. There are some serious consequence to consider in terms of software quality and achieving good play balance across all possible enumeration of options.

---

I don't think it would be a good thing for the AA engine to someday resemble flight sims or racing games with 2-3 screens of user configurable game mechanics. If such were to happen, I believe that the quality of the product will suffer and also the quality of the player's experience. Gee, I hope that makes my point clear. I don't have an axe to grind against anyone's suggestion. I wouldn't have spent so many hours posting here if I wasn't trying to encourage and support the growth of a community around this game.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 71
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:46:02 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


Mr. Frag,

The percentage of enemy destroyed for scenarios can be very misleading especially when you are unfamiliar with what it is really saying.

It represents the percentage of enemy that you have destroyed which the designer has set as a goal. Meaning it could in reality be a small subset of the enemies total force. It may not necessarily be a good indication have how seriously you have degraded the enemies capability to fight.

So, you may look at that and say "well, I am kicking their butts". And then, they attack and you find out the truth!

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 72
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:46:59 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From elmo3:


Mr. Frag - Neither Beery nor I are saying kill the meter for the objective status info for everyone. We're asking for those displays to be optional for those who want more fog of war. The default should be "On", just allow those who don't want to see it to turn it off. Same thing for displaying the status of whether a bridge is still capable of being blown by the Germans.

Mark - In my mind we're asking for a "display" change rather than a "game mechanics" change. I wouldn't want to wade through 3 screens of options either. PzC does it all on one screen and I think AA could easily do the same. I've been around wargame forums for years, as have you I'm sure. The nature of them all is for customers to always want "more" and for betas and designers to say "not so fast there guys". No reason to think this forum will be any different.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 73
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:48:06 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Mr.Frag:


I understand Elmo you are only asking for a option toggle, I just don't see how it benefits FoW.

I can see in RDOA whether or not I hold a VP location by it being highlighted without even looking at the VP meter. The VP meter just lets me see "effectively" the little boxes that happen to be off screen too. It's a playability aid.

Now, if you wanted to remove all screen indicators and map indicators that represent VP, I'd kinda understand where you were going, just not sure I see the logic of only killing off the VP meter in isolation. If this was your request and I misread it (remove all indicators), forgive me.

I still am not quite sure how this fits in with FoW as opposed to being a playability aid. I know if my troops control a bridge generally, because they happen to be on both sides of it dug in, repelling the bad guys. I'm not sure how a little indicator on the map or a vp meter affects this.

Can you explain your thoughts on how this actually affects FoW? I've probably been spending too much time in WitP and missed half the discussion

Mark, thanks for the heads up on the VP enemy destroyed ... didn't know that, that explains a lot

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 74
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:48:53 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


Yes, the WinMeter is solely a display issue.

Actually, I believe "bridge omniscience" would affect game mechanics.

It is not just whether you know, there is also the AI.

(1) Upon your behalf and its own, it must generate routes for forces on the move.

(2) Upon its own behalf, it must generate strategic plans to achieve the objectives.

Both of these would be impact the mechanics in the way the AI manages the game. This might be a fine thing to do. My only feelings on the matter is that I think it be preferable to not support both options only the one which best reflects the evolution of the product.

I think BTS did this very well going from CMBO -> CMBB. There was a lot of discussion about the game's evolution. They listened, made their decisions, and delivered a new game with quite a number of different mechanics. They made no effort to produce an options configuration page allowing players to choose between various details of newer or older mechanics. Their success continues to grow as a result of having a quality product with a good design. One of the most important things for software designers is to manage scope. They have done that quite well.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 75
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:50:08 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From elmo3:


Yes, removing any on-screen indicators of objective status is what I had in mind, not just the meter. Beery explained the idea best when he said that your opponent might slip a unit inside the objective circle, I forget the exact term as I've only played the RDOA demo, and you might miss that fact if the objective didn't turn color or the meter suddenly shift lower. For bridges it might not be possible to slip in a unit, but for airfields/landing areas with large circles or objectives in the woods it could easily happen I think. Some could argue that with more than a couple of objectives to watch they'd rather get the notice. No problem, if there is an option then leave it on. Those of us who want the extra confusion can turn it off.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 76
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:50:50 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From elmo3:


Good point Mark. There could be all kinds of alarms going off in the designers heads abouth this suggested option that we wouldn't even think of without the detailed knowledge they have of the game system. It's not a game breaker for me either way, and I'm perfectly happy to let them decide if the "juice is worth the sqeeze".

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 77
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:51:39 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Mr.Frag:


Elmo, I would personally consider that to be very gamey play if you went through the effort to move units a 1/16" of an inch on the screen for the express purpose of stepping over a mythical line to block VP's from someone who quite obviously control the objective.

When you think about it from that perpective, the VP meter actually provides a good service in blocking out that type of play because it becomes instantly obvious that you are indeed attempting to do that very thing when the meter takes a nose dive on the other guys screen because you shifted your unit to the other side of the circle.

Thats actually one of the things that drove me nuts in RDOA, some of those VP rings were huge and one had to agressively push the enemy completely out of the area to prevent that little two-step for robbing you of a large chunk of points.

With the removal of the circle, that could get rather frustrating because you would be in complete control of the VP area but not get the points because you missed kicking some piddly little unit quite far enough...

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 78
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:52:14 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From MarkShot:


Mr. Frag,

As I recently said in tips thread that is best addressed by putting multiple defend tasks within the big perimeter. That seems to work better than one big force with one task and big foot print specified. The only case where I think the one task and big footprint works is where the terrain is relatively clear with high LOS. But you still have the issue of night time infiltration.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 79
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:52:52 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Mr.Frag:


Understood Mark, but I view sneaking a unit in just far enough to disrupt the VP counter with no plan to actually fight for the VP as being rather cheezie.

There is a large difference between sneaking units behind lines during the dark hours for the purposes of fighting from both sides and playing the two-step over a line for the purposes of sneaking VP's

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 80
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:54:03 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


quote:

I understand Elmo you are only asking for a option toggle, I just don't see how it benefits FoW.


Personally, I'm for anything that reduces unrealistic levels of knowledge that no real commander would have. If that means getting rid of all screen representations of VP levels, I'm 100% for that. No real commander had such cheats, so if this game is to present as realistic a simulation as possible given the medium, why should we? These things only make it easier for the player to beat the AI, and they give online players advantages that real commanders simply didn't have, and that aren't necessary for play. These features only serve to encourage unrealistic play styles and turn what is supposed to be a simulation of realities of battle into a mere tactical game with a war theme.

Having never seen the game system I really can't comment on specifics, but if this game is to present a realistic simulation, it simply should have options that enable the player to play with only the level of detail that the actual participants had. The computer should be a tool for restricting knowledge and giving the player the same decisions that real commanders faced. Thus when a VP location is lost, players should not know that unless their soldiers can see the enemy take that location. Similarly, if a bridge is set to blow, the player trying to take the bridge should not know that there are explosives on it unless his troops can see them, and the player should have no idea of whether it has failed to blow until his troops are in a position to confirm that. Anything else is a cheat.

As for gauges of enemy strength loss - no commander should ever EVER know that. These kinds of things are simply cheats to allow players to more easily mould their strategy. Such flexibility was simply not available to real commanders, and thus such 'features' should NEVER be in what is marketed a realistic battle simulation.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 81
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:54:52 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


Another thing that seems to be being forgotten here is that the vast majority of players do not play online (online players are generally only about 5% of the total player community). The players of the single player game need every disadvantage they can get since AI just isn't capable of posing as much of a threat as a real human opponent. Enhancements to fog of war are only a formality in online play (and that tends to be why online players don't require them) since, generally speaking, online players are in it more for the challenge of beating a human opponent than for the history lesson such simulations can give. But for the player whose opponent must be the AI, such features are essential both for playability and for historical accuracy.

Let me put it this way - the more unrealistic advantages players have, the less the game is a simulation. Personally when I play a wargame my main consideration is how realistic a portrayal of the historical battle the game will give. If I'm presented with a VP area that turns red (or shows up in some other way) when the opponent enters it, even when my soldiers are in no position to see it, then that's as unrealistic to me as having machineguns that never run out of bullets and that can shoot through 6 feet of concrete. Both things allow me to do things that no real combatant could do. There are lots of sci-fi games I can play that don't claim to be realistic, and if I just want the challenge of playing a combat game online I can play any of those. But a historically-based wargame is supposed to give me more than that.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 82
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:56:29 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Keke:


quote:

Having never seen the game system I really can't comment on specifics, but if this game is to present a realistic simulation, it simply should have options that enable the player to play with only the level of detail that the actual participants had.


I'd say with that kind of design philosophy one would not be happy until players are sent back to the '40s with a time-machine to command the actual troops...

Maybe then one would appreciate those tea-breaks more...

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 83
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:57:15 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


What I'm talking about is realISM, not realITY. A simulation demands realism. Realism isn't a dirty word, and you don't need to go back in time to achieve it. You just need to determine what a simulation needs to cut out (in terms of the omniscient nonsense that wargames have given us for the last 20 years) in order to give the player the best appreciation of the decisions that a commander would face. If you prefer games like Command and Conquer that give players a hyped-up ultra-violent version of what war would be if humans had no sense of self-preservation, those games exist for you. To me they're tedious because they are too far-fetched for my taste.

This is a wargame based on a WW2 historical battle. As such it should not present us with a command perspective that represents a 21st century commander's knowledge of the battlefield. There were no drone aircraft flying over Arnhem, giving pin-point positions of enemy troops, and there were no electronic aids giving the commander news from the front the second it happened. I'm fed up with being told by game developers that I'm getting an ultra-realistic simulation of WW2 combat only to find out that the 'simulation' gives me WW2 troops but a command and control system that most armies in the year 2003 don't have access to. How am I supposed to be faced with the problems of a WW2 commander when I am forced to use tools that only the most modern computerized military has? It's ludicrous to call such a game a 'simulation'.

Computer wargames are still using ludicrously outdated board wargame technology which gives the player far too much information. It was originally done this way because you simply can't hide that stuff on a board. But here we are, well into the computer age, and most 'serious' computer wargames are still using hexes, even when board wargames have generally evolved to area movement. I mean it's ridiculous that our computer technology is so much more advanced than board wargames, but board wargames are still far more advanced than their computer contemporaries because they are evolving while computer games are still so obsessed with graphics that they're struggling to catch up to 20 year-old boardgame innovations.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 84
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:58:06 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


Having said all that, I recognise that HTTR represents an evolutionary step in terms of its movement rules (i.e. no hexes), its way of removing the micromanagement flaws inherent in turn-based games, and its order delay system, but if it's still giving the player real time VP and enemy strength data, it is failing to give players what it's supposedly created for - a realistic WW2 commander's perspective leading to a realistic simulation of WW2 battle. If you're playing a game where there is no information lag from the front, second-by second knowledge of enemy movements and force strengths, and instant communication between elements of your command structure, I'm sorry, but you're not playing a WW2 wargame. You are playing a simulation of war in the 21st century fought by WW2 infantry. I'm not involved in this hobby to play fantasy wargames, and I'm sick to death of being expected to cheer every time a new wargame system comes along that's filled with the same old flaws. It's about time that game developers developed some vision and created something that deserves the title 'historical battle simulation'. Computers are easily able to do all the things necessary to get us there. Hiding information from players is what computers do best. Cardboard, counters, and rulebooks can't hide that information from the players, but computers can. So why on Earth is it that when it comes to computer wargames, developers are still giving us information that no real commander had access to, simply because that's the information that board wargames are forced, by virtue of their physical limitations, to give?

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 85
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:58:57 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Arjuna:


Hey Beery. We've got your point. I believe we share a similar view on realism. Can I suggest that before we take this any further you play HTTR. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Sure there will be aspects that don't meet your ideal. But I think you will find HTTR delivers more realism than any other operational level wargame to date.

Please keep in mind that we are evolving and refining the system with each game released. We'll be starting up some discussion threads after release in which you are warmly invited to contribute your ideas on how we can develop the game system.

Once again thanks for your discussion.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 86
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 6:59:44 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


Okay, sorry. But sometimes I get so disappointed when I see my fellow gamers clinging to outmoded ways of doing things simply because that's what they're used to, and arguing vociferously against innovation. This hobby (by which I mean that of the computer wargame) desperately needs to evolve beyond the limits of the cardboard and counters technology that preceded it. I've been playing computer wargames for 23 years (I'll never forget my Intellivision - classic), and it never fails to frustrate me when I see computer wargames evolving so darned slowly when the possibilities for getting beyond the 2D 'you see everything, no fog of war' boardgame format are almost infinite.

That's all I'll say for now on this topic. I'm sure you'll be hearing from me after Monday when the first thing I'm gonna do is go out and buy this game. I'm sure I won't be disappointed, but that doesn't mean I won't be critical. No one ever helped a game system improve by endlessly praising it.

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 87
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 7:00:42 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Arjuna:


quote:

No one ever helped a game system improve by endlessly praising it.


That must be a "Beeryism", heh!

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 88
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 7:01:39 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Beery:


quote:

That must be a "Beeryism", heh!


Hehe, I guess it is. I sincerely wish you folks well with this game. I think Panther have chosen a great distributor in Matrix games - they seem able to get their games onto the shelves wherever I go in search of computer games. The last wargame I saw with this visionary level of innovation was a computer simulation of Waterloo which was published about 10 or 15 years ago (it had no hexes, order delay, and your information as commander depended on your distance from any unit - as a command simulator it was way ahead of its time), but that game seemed to be poorly marketed here in the US and it just didn't get the exposure that it deserved. I played it endlessly though, until I figured out the AI and, sadly, had to give it up. I don't suppose anyone here remembers it?

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 89
RE: Tutorial Thread - 2/15/2004 7:03:17 PM   
Tzar007


Posts: 772
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Status: offline 		From Golf33:


quote:

...the player should have no idea of whether it has failed to blow until his troops are in a position to confirm that.


There is no attempt to blow bridges until the force assigned to deny the crossing is under attack, so by the time the enemy is trying to drop a bridge you have troops close enough to see what is going on anyway.

Oddly enough the information on crossing point status was added because a lot of players of RDOA asked for it

quote:

As for gauges of enemy strength loss - no commander should ever EVER know that. These kinds of things are simply cheats to allow players to more easily mould their strategy. Such flexibility was simply not available to real commanders, and thus such 'features' should NEVER be in what is marketed a realistic battle simulation.


As far as casualties inflicted on the enemy, AA doesn't give you anything a real commander wouldn't have access to. Your impression of enemy strength comes from intel reports that are based solely on observations from your units and are usually realistically inaccurate

The 'enemy destroyed' objective is a lot less informative than you'd think - it is very indirect and does not tell you how many men/vehicles/guns the enemy has lost, and absolutely doesn't tell you how many he has left or how many he had to start with. The player also has no way of knowing if it reflects the total amount of the enemy force destroyed or just some smaller (or even larger) proportion - the scenario designer sets the number of points for attrition, and the percentage of the enemy force to be destroyed to achieve that. All the player sees is the number of points he has and the number he could gain; he doesn't see the percentage of casualties he has to inflict to do so. I could set it so the player saw full attrition points for destroying as little as 1% of the enemy force; it's not even limited to a maximum of 100% casualties, I could set it so the player could only get half the attrition points apparently on offer, even by destroying every enemy unit. If you play using the attrition objective to gauge enemy losses, you are setting yourself up for some nasty surprises!

It's also not present in every scenario, in many cases the geographic objectives are the only thing going.

Adjudicating victory and defeat in wargames (in real battles too for that matter) is a whole philosophical area in itself, with all sorts of different considerations and approaches. There are lots of different ways to do it and most of them are probably equally valid. HTTR represents one way of doing things; it's not really something that can be discussed in great detail until you've played the game a bit and seen how this approach works in practice.

Cheers
33

(in reply to Tzar007)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Highway to the Reich >> RE: Tutorial Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.719