Great news… few potential traps . (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Battlefront



Message

kipanderson -> Great news… few potential traps . (7/5/2006 9:17:22 PM)


Hi,

The new series of games, and I hope it will be a series, sounds great. An improvement on an already fine game system. I will buy it for sure [:)].

However… just a couple of concerns.

Firstly, Direct Fire and operational games, even the lowest level of operational games, do not mix, in my experience. Panzer Campaigns was broken, in terms of the realism of the simulation, by have direct fire as part of the combat procedure. Of course, Panzer Campaigns has been around for a long time, it is not its commercial success or otherwise that I am commenting on, but in terms of realism it did not make the grade in large part because of direct fire. Remembered that in all but the most open of open terrain even AFVs can take cover. Remember the “empty battlefield” [;)].

Think through when direct fire would happen, even between AFVs units. It would not happen just because the units were 1km apart, or oppose each other in the line. They would be behind structures, dips in the ground and such. The direct fire would happen when one side or the other were engaged in an assault of one kind or another. So why not include “direct fire” as just part of the assault/probe. Why have direct fire at all?

Secondly… a point I have made a number of times before… I hope that units will not be “too agile” [;)].

Anyway… am greatly looking forward to the game. Do not take my concerns as criticism before Battlefront is even released. It is not meant that way.

Finally, do consider options as a way to make a game that could be novice friendly and usable for the more serious wargamer and military history nut.

All very good fun,
All the best,
Kip.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/7/2006 4:32:30 AM)

I'll be explaining the details of the game system on our website over the coming weeks.However, I can say that units that are entrenched are much less vulnerable to direct fire and that it is a feature that will become most important in a battle like Gazala. As you push your armored vehicles forward into enemy territory they will be vulnerable whilever they are on contested ground and can't dig in. There are a number of restrictions on Direct Fire that mean that it can't be abused to massacre units, but it does mean that tanks can pay a price for their boldness.



John21b -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/8/2006 5:17:27 AM)

Gregor,

I don't think he was talking about entrenchments etc. What I think he ment was that in any one square K of terrain there are numerous terrain features that allow men and machines to find cover and or concealment behind/in. Once you jump to this level of terrain you have to abstract it correctly.

John



Rob Gjessing -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/8/2006 5:34:49 AM)

The 'abstract' in it is that not every ART bombardment or Direct Fire shot will hit.  There will still be a percentage chance to hit - and these percentages can be set by the scenario designer.



Montbrun -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/8/2006 4:33:14 PM)

I don't have a problem with "direct fire," because this is assumed to happen as a function of an assault within the hex (or hexside) being assaulted. I do have a problem with ZOCs being exerted in a game of this scale. IMHO, ZOCs should only be exerted by units which have an advantage in observation of the surrounding terrain - ie, on higher ground....



Capitaine -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/9/2006 1:10:01 AM)

Another thing with the 1km hex size is that LOS really should become a factor. Not in relation to LOF -- although that perhaps should be a factor with certain ordnance (88mm's) -- but simply with respect to spotting enemy formations. I don't know that the terrain system of DB, which looks to be used in Battlefront too, is amenable to realistic LOS determinations. No discernable elevation levels, etc.



JSS -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/9/2006 1:50:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Another thing with the 1km hex size is that LOS really should become a factor. Not in relation to LOF -- although that perhaps should be a factor with certain ordnance (88mm's) -- but simply with respect to spotting enemy formations. I don't know that the terrain system of DB, which looks to be used in Battlefront too, is amenable to realistic LOS determinations. No discernable elevation levels, etc.


In due time SSG will explain these LOF issues... unit direct fire capability (attack & defend), terrain, and elevation will likely be discussed in the ongoing series of articles. Terrain effects on indirect fire effectiveness will likely also be discussed[:D]



kipanderson -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/9/2006 9:42:27 AM)

Hi,

John21b did a very good job of explaining what I meant.

“I don't think he was talking about entrenchments etc. What I think he ment was that in any one square K of terrain there are numerous terrain features that allow men and machines to find cover and or concealment behind/in. Once you jump to this level of terrain you have to abstract it correctly.”

Just so there is no mistake.

Take an example from Western Europe, Arnhem campaign if you wish. A German combined arms team of tanks and infantry is in the line opposite a US para battalion. If there were no particular assault going on the US unit, as it surveyed the enemy opposite, would see nothing. No enemy units. All it would see is houses, trees, hedges and various terrain features. If it were such that the terrain did not allow for the hiding of units, the Germans would not bring their units so far forward. Would hold them 2km or more from the US unit with just a few forward infantry observation posts. A US sniper may be able to see the odd head bob around over a foxhole or through a window, but that would be about it. Why, because the Germans would have all their men and armour behind cover if no actual assault were going on. Hence the phrase “the empty battlefield”. Soldiers in WWII expected to see the enemy in their first battles, when they first popped their heads over the foxhole for a quick look. But normally found they could see no enemy.

This is why I say that having direct fire in operational games, other than when an assault is in progress is unrealistic.

Of course, SSG may know all this and have taken all this into account in their modeling, time will tell. But as a general rule direct fire and operational games do not mix. It broke Panzer Campaigns as a realistic operational game.

But each to their own [;)].

Looking forward to the game [:)],
All the best,
Kip.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Great news… few potential traps . (7/10/2006 4:00:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John21b

Gregor,

I don't think he was talking about entrenchments etc. What I think he ment was that in any one square K of terrain there are numerous terrain features that allow men and machines to find cover and or concealment behind/in. Once you jump to this level of terrain you have to abstract it correctly.

John


We use entrenchment to mean just more than digging trenches. It represents having the time to find and exploit the various features of terrain you find yourself in. In our system, you can never entrench in a hex that is contested - that is a hex that was enemy controlled that you have ust moved on to. So in that one turn, after an advance into new terrain, you are particularly vulnerable to enemy counter attacks and artillery.

Gregor



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.811523