Update V (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Hard Sarge -> Update V (11/25/2006 5:53:04 PM)

just so you know, we still at work, just not doing too much talking

a lot of the art work is coming in and being added to the game

which is screwy, as before, we didn't want to show off all the placeholder art, now we don't want to show off simi finished art

but it is looking good and we making time



jchastain -> RE: Update V (11/26/2006 5:51:38 AM)

Thanks for the update Sarge.  Keep cracking that whip.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (11/26/2006 6:09:12 AM)

LOL
don't you got a AAR to write or something :)

got to say though, the Artwork is looking sweet





Andy Mac -> RE: Update V (12/5/2006 12:36:13 PM)

Grrr come on guys I was hoping for this one prior to Xmas at least one of my WITP PBEM opponents will need to recieve an allied 4E bomber slapping !!!



pauk -> RE: Update V (12/7/2006 11:20:12 PM)

[:D]...i guess it isn't me[:D]



oi_you_nutter -> RE: Update V (12/7/2006 11:25:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

just so you know, we still at work, just not doing too much talking

a lot of the art work is coming in and being added to the game

which is screwy, as before, we didn't want to show off all the placeholder art, now we don't want to show off simi finished art

but it is looking good and we making time


heres a silly question,

BTR and BoB were sperate games, is the Matrix Edition going to be one game or two ?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/7/2006 11:35:26 PM)

well

that depends on your point of view

[:-][:-][:-]

but over all, here is how it works

both games will be working from the same engine, so what ever rules or actions that work in one, will work in the other, so in that case, they will be one game, just different data and maps

the game will begin and you have to pick if you want to play ED or play BTR, once you go though that menu, then it is a single game

so, it will be one game, that you can play either or in

you will not be able to start a ED game and have it keep going into BTR, that is beyound us right now

(that idea has been offered more then a few times as a wish list idea, and it may be worked on, but way down the road, and I mean, way down the road, we got alot of other ideas we would like to try to add in later first)

I hope that explains it





The Dude -> RE: Update V (12/27/2006 10:59:27 PM)

Have the dates of play been changed for the two games particularly BTR or is it still the same date Aug 17th 43 that the game starts



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/28/2006 5:27:07 AM)

for this verison, the dates have been kept the same

down the road, we were hopeing to either have a earlier date, or a different campaign for the the Start of BoB

not really much talk about a different start date for BTR (anything in mind ?)



Alfred -> RE: Update V (12/28/2006 9:18:41 AM)

Hard Sarge,

Well....now that you have opened up Pandoras box....

I know people have complained that if you started BTR earlier (eg the first US raid on Rouen) the Allied player would be bored.  However as a compromise, how about starting at Operation Husky with the Sicilian airfields in Axis hands but scheduled to change over to Allied use.  If that were difficult (from a coding perspective), you could have the Sicilian airfields abandoned by the Axis and coming on stream for the Allies.  With this start we get an additional 4 weeks use of the RA and the Allied player would not be bored because he would have to knock out Axis airfields in southern Italy.

Alfred



The Dude -> RE: Update V (12/29/2006 5:54:32 AM)

this is the kind of game where if you get bored plotting small raids you should just not play it at all.  Baby steps and all[:D]



pad152 -> RE: Update V (12/29/2006 11:38:44 PM)

Any chance of an editor of some sort?[:)]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 3:29:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hard Sarge,

Well....now that you have opened up Pandoras box....

I know people have complained that if you started BTR earlier (eg the first US raid on Rouen) the Allied player would be bored. However as a compromise, how about starting at Operation Husky with the Sicilian airfields in Axis hands but scheduled to change over to Allied use. If that were difficult (from a coding perspective), you could have the Sicilian airfields abandoned by the Axis and coming on stream for the Allies. With this start we get an additional 4 weeks use of the RA and the Allied player would not be bored because he would have to knock out Axis airfields in southern Italy.

Alfred


sorry for the delay in getting back to you

the biggest trouble for dates, is reseach, if we got the info, most times we can work out how to get the info into the game (by the end of July, there were 21 AFs on Sicly, in our game, I got 21 AFs, so I think I got most of them)

I do like the idea of the early battle for Sardina and Sicly, but would have to work out the ground battle side of the thing

I think it is something we can think about



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 3:34:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Dude

this is the kind of game where if you get bored plotting small raids you should just not play it at all. Baby steps and all[:D]


at times, some of the plotting and correcting can be the fun part :)

even more so, when it all comes together and works the way you wanted it to

(always hate it, when you get everything just right and either toss in a last second raid, or weather screws up a raid, and it takes off and draws all the enemy right into all the raids you had spent so much time working out how they would be clean going in)

which if you play like I do, the plotting can be the real game :)



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 3:39:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Any chance of an editor of some sort?[:)]


maybe down the road a bit, do not forsee one with the release of the game

plus in the long run, I think we will have to think very HARD about it, there is a lot of data and code, that need to in the right order for the game to work right, if the player changes it, it will not work the way you would expect, we have gotten alot of these places out of the game, but others were have to be kept



fochinell -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 2:16:39 PM)


I know people have complained that if you started BTR earlier (eg the first US raid on Rouen) the Allied player would be bored.

If this refers to my post on the matter, I was suggesting it as an extra campaign, similar to the jet age one. Most of the AF's already exist, and the major OB changes would boil down to one major transfer of RAF and USAAF units from the UK to the 12th AF and Med Air Command for TORCH, and then another transfer of units from the MTO to the UK in the spring of '44 - which is already reflected to some degree by the existing OB. Other than that a simple time delay on Axis factories coming on line would cover the difference in production between August '42 and August '43, plus a time delay on units arriving which already exists. I assumed most of this would be covered by existing database entries.

Aside from any programming issues, I don't see why a 1000-turn game should be any more boring than a 700-turn game; the challenge would be in using the limited resources on both sides effectively. I suspect the real problem would be the scoring under the existing system, with terror points being the only way for the Allied player to stay in the game for the first 12 months.

This isn't a serious contender for a high priority task for HS and his team right now, just an idea to kick around for the future.




Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 4:12:57 PM)

I think it is worth talking about, but then the trouble is getting the reseach, and working out which time is the best to try and get it started at

but really do want to stay away from the shifting of forces between commands, that is a bit of a issue



fochinell -> RE: Update V (12/30/2006 7:58:24 PM)


I think it is worth talking about, but then the trouble is getting the reseach, and working out which time is the best to try and get it started at

but really do want to stay away from the shifting of forces between commands, that is a bit of a issue

Well, the real problem sounds like the Torch issue, where several 8th AF units move to the 12th AF, and RAF units in the UK move to Eastern Command in North West Africa. After that, the only major shuffle between commands is the RAF movement of fighter units back to the UK before Overlord, which is already covered by the August '43 OB. If Torch is the problem, I suppose you could start it in January '43 for the first 8th AF raid on Germany or any time after that.



KGrob -> RE: Update V (5/22/2007 12:05:52 AM)

I've looked through all these threads and it seems as though the release of BTR is near...but I didn't see a release date anywhere...and I didn't see it for sale over in the store section.  I played bombing the reich before and it's a super fun game, one of the most immersive of all time IMO...and I'd like to play it again...some day.  :)

Is there a general date by which the game is expected to be released?  Such as "Fall 2007" or "around December 2007" or something like that?




Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/5/2007 10:25:50 PM)

Hi Guys

some of what I been working on the last few days

here is the GB OOB for 41

(I see one name I need to change, thought I had gotten it, it was on the list, but must of missed it)

and still waiting on some info for a few other units I want to add to the OOB to stick with the story line of the battle (it is a What if, so What if ...)





[image]local://upfiles/1438/E7C040A1A7D6493383EBCE778B50C559.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/5/2007 10:30:34 PM)

the Spit I and IIs are on the way out, while the V is being built, but I gave a bit of a stockpile so they will not bleed themselfs out

some new models added

and as you can see, the CW is getting into gear to help out the motherland (and some friends are comeing in)



[image]local://upfiles/1438/A2DF613D6F78410481B6173471B18E36.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/5/2007 10:35:37 PM)

41 is looking like a good year to die



[image]local://upfiles/1438/71B18BA5A87C401EAD9052DD18208BEA.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/5/2007 10:38:30 PM)

which just in case, I am still going though units to check plane type and group where I can, so not everything is in stone yet

(609 should have Spit Vs as of the start of the 41 battle, not the IAs they are showing now)




Reg -> RE: Update V (6/6/2007 12:59:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and as you can see, the CW is getting into gear to help out the motherland (and some friends are coming in)



Sarge,

Commonwealth Squadrons from this period were designated using the format "No. 452 Squadron RAAF". Same format for the Canadians, New Zealanders, etc

"452 Squadron RAAF" would probably also be acceptable for this game but I think the "452 RAAF Squadron" is too unhistorical to be used.

Otherwise this is lookin' real good. I can't wait.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/6/2007 2:34:16 PM)

hmmmmm

I can see some of that, but it is odd

as it is also listed as no. 153 Squadron RAF

so that is screwy

also, can be listed as no. 312 (Czech) Squadron RAF

plus it don't really make sense for the Eagle Squadrons

which, in the long run, the real issue, I running out of lettering slots for unit names :(




von Shagmeister -> RE: Update V (6/6/2007 4:06:08 PM)

In British literature RAF Sqns aren't normally suffixed with RAF ie 41 Sqn not 41 Sqn RAF. However in literature produced out of the UK (say Canada) RAF Sqns are usually suffixed to differentiate between that nations own Air Force units ie 111 Sqn RAF to differentiate between 111 Sqn RCAF

CW Sqns are suffixed with the Air Force they originated from ie 2 Sqn SAAF or 401 Sqn RCAF

Sqns manned by other nationalities but under RAF operational control have the nationality in brackets ie 331 (Norwegian) Sqn or 302 (Polish) Sqn. Eagle Sqns were an exception, however being named Sqns they sometimes appear with their name but as with all named Sqns often the names are dropped.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/7/2007 4:28:27 AM)

names for BoB have been changed



Hard Sarge -> RE: Update V (6/9/2007 11:32:54 PM)

well, I got to say, I am starting to like the OOB for BoB41, for a what if, I think we got a pretty good detailed OOB

LOL feels like a song

Canes and Hawks and Winds oh my

I beefed up the LW pretty good, so I had to go and make sure the GB had enough to defend themselfs, this may be a what if, but I think it is going to be a fun one



Hertston -> RE: Update V (6/10/2007 3:44:49 AM)

What von Shagmeister says, with the addition that the "no." is not used by the RAF. The screenies have it right with the exception that, as has been said, it should be 406 Squadron RCAF, not 406 RCAF squadron.



Reg -> RE: Update V (6/10/2007 9:25:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

What von Shagmeister says, with the addition that the "no." is not used by the RAF. The screenies have it right with the exception that, as has been said, it should be 406 Squadron RCAF, not 406 RCAF squadron.


I'm afraid that I will have to respectfully disagree that the prefix 'No.' was not used in contemporary documents. The main aim of this was to reinforce that units were designated 'Number 406 Squadron', NOT the '406th Squadron' and was used at the Wing level as well. Have a look at the designations in my scan below from the Australian Official Histories (which quote the original documents).

By the way, the Quote below is from page 121 of Chapter 5 of Volume 3 of the Air Series and can be found on-line at the Australian War Memorial's Official Histories – Second World War.

However, I do agree in the game context, it is much less screen clutter if the 'No.' prefix is dropped and it does not detract from the historical atmosphere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

Sqns manned by other nationalities but under RAF operational control have the nationality in brackets ie 331 (Norwegian) Sqn or 302 (Polish) Sqn.


As with every rule, there are two exceptions. The 400 series Article XV (Empire Air Training Scheme) Squadrons were paid for and were under the operational control of the RAF. However, their designations were not so straight forward as Headquarters Middle East found out when they issued Administration Instruction (External) No. 191, which ran:

[image]local://upfiles/446/C7AA5B847BFA498386D9E64B2480879C.gif[/image]

To keep this in context, No. 3 Squadron RAAF belonged to the RAAF proper and was paid for by the Commonwealth of Australia despite being designated the same as and operating along side Nos. 450 and 451 Squadron RAAF in the Middle East.

There is quite an involved discussion on how this came about in the first volume of the Air Series in the Official Histories referenced above.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625