What is and what is not..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

dgk196 -> What is and what is not..... (4/19/2008 9:32:50 PM)

I've posted several different, but loosely related posts about various air power subjects.
This is not meant to challenge anyone, I'm just trying to get a 'feel' for the various positions about these, one way or the other, and why!

Some think various aspects should be included in a tactical game such as this and of course some take the opposite position. Again, if you please, why?

I pretty much come down on including as many aspects as possible and as detailed as possible. But as always, I feel these features should remain as an optional selection by the players. Some might not want to take the time to conduct certain types of attacks and would prefer that the computer do the work. Nothing wrong with that. Equally, there is nothing wrong with wanting to do the work! Is there?

I guess if someone could supply me with a definition of what 'tactical' (in game terms) is, relative to what should or should not be included, then maybe I wouldn't be so confused! [:)] [&o]

A left field consideration of the extent of how extreme 'tactical' could be.......
At one time the U.S. and its NATO forces fielded 'tactical nuclear weapons'!
So folks lets hear it! What do you think!

Dennis [;)]



countblue -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/23/2008 10:54:57 PM)

To answer your thread (since its a long time waiting for one)

First:
I think many of the Hardcore CS gamers prefer the game as it is rather to an experiment that may lead to disaster.

Second:
No offence intended, but to change so many things in the game would practically mean getting another game not actually anymore the one we are used to.

Third:
Some of things you suggest seem to be out of scope of the game engine considering that matrix is doing only "upgrades" rather than programming features into a fresh "source code".

As always
my 02.
Countblue




Arkady -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/24/2008 12:04:45 AM)

many features proposed are realy out of scope for duration of battle, thay can be modeled for you by scenario author though

tactical level for platoon size units limits you to: direct your units on map, creating strategy to achive assigned goals and call for off map artillery/air support (abstract for forward observer/communication officer in your staff) during limited time frame, of course as a bonus you can tell your units when and where fire...you can not select place and time where you are at scenario start. And all this things affect your posibilities...no level bombing (operational task for corps/army hq), no air superiority (if you have AS, you can call air attacks ...scenario designer choice) etc.

tactical nuke weapons - yes, it is tactical weapon to allow advance for field units but place where to strike and when was decide long before, in army HQ during operation planning...for example, Soviet attack plans from 1958 call for some 350 tactical strikes (known army concentrations, airfield, communication hubs, headquarters, etc) in operational area of Czechoslovak army during first two days of attack to clean corridors and allow advance to southern Germany/France



dgk196 -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/27/2008 10:30:42 AM)

The range that this game covers is potentially enormous.....

I thought, well, there is a lot of 'flak' about what is or is not 'tactical'. I use this 'term' because it seems to be the 'collective' for this game!

But is it appropriate? Well, each individual has to follow their path to where it leads them!

The dictionary defines tactical as a method or procedure used to achieve a goal. The only reference to a 'unit' is that of an independent organization capable of sustaining operations, on their own. No reference is made to the 'level' of organizations. In other words, 'tactical' could apply on a 'Front level' or down to the individual soldier!

The developing differences, and the starting points of both 'direct support' and 'interdiction' capabilities of the various nations are what makes the difference that allowed the 'in contact, front line troops' to achieve the success they did.

Germany, apparently, had taken this to a very high level early on in the war. EVERYONE else played catch-up for the rest of the war. This manifests itself in 'them' being able to apply support either on a 'local' basis or reduces the 'delay' from the 'next day' category to the 'conceivably within the time frame of certain scenario's'. The 'Borodino' scenario being 135 turns (13.5 hours).

Surprisingly, this is evident more so in the 'Rising Sun' portion of the game. Almost without exception, almost ALL of the 'supporting' air power in this 'section' would be of the 'interdiction and preplanned category'. Especially, Guadalcanal and 'early war' era. Do you think you would incur much more losses without the air power attacks supplied by the Navy and Marine aviation during the pacific campaign? Should all air power be dispensed with in the 'Pacific' because of this? Naval and Marine 'air support' would develop quickly into the standard by which everyone else would measure their success. So that 'shore to ship' requests for 'air support' and Naval gunfire where available 'quickly', by anyone's standards! Iwo Jima without Naval gunfire and air support?

Believe it or not, this also applies to the 'European' fronts also. Early in the war, Polish, French and British air power where based on operations to be conducted the next day, based on collected intelligence, which was then disseminated, through the organization and 'appropriate' attacks planned. Whereas, the Germans could and did implement this much more quickly! Later in the war, American and British forces utilized similar methods. The Russians? They make the early war French and British look competent (sorry, all you early war allies fans) !

For example, during the Kursk battle, the Air forces on the 'Southern Front' had two radio's at the Front level. All commands and requests had to go all the way up the 'army' chain of command then, once they 'decided' what to do, requested 'air support' which then had to be deciphered and and planned and passed back down the 'air force' chain of command. Again, guess who wasn't there when the attack occurred? Air superiority? The Russians would 'fly' over an area with their 'air superiority' units. They would circle a fixed point on the ground. The Germans would just fly by them and not incur any losses because they did not intrude on the 'air supported area'. Conversely, Russian air units did not 'leave their post' to aid adjacent air units being attacked by the Germans. Local air superiority? You bet! The examples are almost endless.

Compare this to the 'SG's' operations which had their headquarters with the ground forces they where to support. Meetings of the staffs where held, even fly-by's of the air units where made so ground units could see what the support aircraft looked like and ground unit deployed their various vehicles so the air units could identify friend from foe! Members of the SG's had never seen a 'Tiger' on the ground or from the air prior to the start of the Kursk battle! Seems odd to us today, but this was a situation encountered by units at the time! Such weapons being 'secret', you couldn't just pick up a newspaper, magazine or book with the latest weapons pictured and described! Not to mention their much more sophisticated tactics and technical advantages, which allowed them to implement on the spot changes to missions even while the units where in the 'air' on the way to their previously planned targets.

So, in conclusion, I am afraid that I must disagree with some on this site, sorry. Not only is it within the 'realm' of this game, but to leave it out would be the equivalent of not having 'armor' related effects, both offensive and defensive, to give an analogy. Yes, some countries 'doctrines and abilities' might make their individual representation inappropriate for this game. But other forces who developed quick response chain-of-commands, should be able to have it represented in the game.

Again, I am for suggesting this as an 'options' selection at the start of the scenario. I realize this 'level' of additions is not for everyone. Food for thought!

Dennis [;)]



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/27/2008 5:52:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

The range that this game covers is potentially enormous.....

True, if you take the original "scale" of 250 m per hex and 6 minutes per turn, you need to alter the scale or create mega turn "monster games" to go well beyond the original intent of the designers?
This game is scaled around platoons?
Scenarios can be designed to do anything that would fit on the largest map you create?


quote:

Germany, apparently, had taken this to a very high level early on in the war. EVERYONE else played catch-up for the rest of the war. This manifests itself in 'them' being able to apply support either on a 'local' basis or reduces the 'delay' from the 'next day' category to the 'conceivably within the time frame of certain scenario's'. The 'Borodino' scenario being 135 turns (13.5 hours).


The German military was not "far ahead" of everyone. And yes, there was catching up to do for the Allied powers.
I'm not a fan of playing tactical games that go beyond 20 to 25 turns. Your taste and mine are different. And, I have no problem with that.

quote:

Early in the war, Polish, French and British air power where based on operations to be conducted the next day, based on collected intelligence, which was then disseminated, through the organization and 'appropriate' attacks planned. Whereas, the Germans could and did implement this much more quickly! Later in the war, American and British forces utilized similar methods. The Russians? They make the early war French and British look competent (sorry, all you early war allies fans)!


Yes, the Germans developed their air forces to tactically support their army troops. It became more a hinderance as the war progressed. Where was the Ural's bomber? How was that strategic "attack thing" working for them in defeating the Soviets in 1941?
Or, did those medium bombers bring England to their knees?
How'd the Stuka do over England?
quote:

The examples are almost endless.


Both ways, for sure.

quote:

So, in conclusion, I am afraid that I must disagree with some on this site, sorry.


Dennis,

No need to be sorry. Disagreements are part of the equation?
How they are handled can be a cause for regret?
I'm not a big fan of Engineer 'bridge building' or sowing "hasty" minefields "at this scale" but, others are developing those "upgrades". As a player I can choose not to use or play the scenarios that make use of them.

Ed



Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/27/2008 6:53:12 PM)

I Agree with Dgk196 its all with the scope of the game. Otherwise we should keep original game talonsoft editions gave us and not have bought this game. There is nothing to fear but fear it self. You should go forward or other wise you go backward. Stagnation means death to anything.

Just look at what happen to American Baseball. Traditionalist and baseball players strikes almost kill the game.

Yes! I agree. We do not want to destroy the original concept of the game but we do want to improve it.




Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/27/2008 6:55:57 PM)

If you are not fan of something do not use it. But do not deprive the rest of us from enjoy the improvements propose to this program, please!



Arkady -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/27/2008 9:22:29 PM)

Well, I like improvemnts that Matrix Games brings to the game and I want more...
I just have different point of view than Dgk196 [:D]

Some of his points are interesting but my point is that they can be modeled by scenario author and not included directly within the game engine [;)]

My top items on personal wish list are armor backwards moving (to keep facing), unit concealment improvement (patch 1.03!) and better recon units (similar to HPS Panzer Campaigns where you can spent action points to observe LOS area in your turn  and check for enemy units)



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/28/2008 12:10:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miamieagle

I Agree with Dgk196 its all with the scope of the game. Otherwise we should keep original game talonsoft editions gave us and not have bought this game. There is nothing to fear but fear it self. You should go forward or other wise you go backward. Stagnation means death to anything.


But, just adding things because you can, and not because they are right, is self defeating?

quote:

Just look at what happen to American Baseball. Traditionalist and baseball players strikes almost kill the game.


So, why not use metal bats, allow runners to carry the bat to first base to take out the first baseman, and give the pitcher three extra balls to take out the runner before he gets to first base?
Cork everyone's bat ... because you can.
And, put in a rule where the game can only be played in the sunshine. Or, if the commercial goes too long the hitters have to be blindfolded?

quote:

Yes! I agree. We do not want to destroy the original concept of the game but we do want to improve it.


I actually agree with a lot of the improvements. I just think that scale and "feel" need to come into play more than shoving in a lot of "chrome".

Trying to slap a traditionalist down does no good either?
Take the new engineers or the "wreck clearing units". If you ever worked in construction and had a broken down bulldozer that needed to be moved out of the way, you would know that six minutes is a way too small chunk of time to move a wreck. And, that's even without being fired upon.
Did I say that I wanted the game to be exactly what it was? It's not being a traditionalist. It is more being a realist. [;)]



Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (4/30/2008 10:01:22 AM)

Quote[But, just adding things because you can, and not because they are right, is self defeating?]
Who is to say whats right or wrong! Are you going to be the Judge for the rest of us on what is right and wrong and good for this program so can enjoy it your way?

[So, why not use metal bats, allow runners to carry the bat to first base to take out the first baseman, and give the pitcher three extra balls to take out the runner before he gets to first base?
Cork everyone's bat ... because you can.
And, put in a rule where the game can only be played in the sunshine. Or, if the commercial goes too long the hitters have to be blindfolded? ]

So lets go back to just playing game"s within the National and American leage 162 time and never get to see players from the other league. It that what you like. Not me I like diversity.

Lets go back the limited the playoff to just eight teams and eliminate the wild cards. That would make half of the baseball season pretty boring since most divisions champions will have been decided by mid July or early August.We would have a whole month of just watching Baseball games with no meaning or concequence in the season. Now with the Wildcards we have races that are much closer and sometimes not decided to the last game of the season. Now that exciting!

[I actually agree with a lot of the improvements. I just think that scale and "feel" need to come into play more than shoving in a lot of "chrome".

Trying to slap a traditionalist down does no good either?
Take the new engineers or the "wreck clearing units". If you ever worked in construction and had a broken down bulldozer that needed to be moved out of the way, you would know that six minutes is a way too small chunk of time to move a wreck. And, that's even without being fired upon.
Did I say that I wanted the game to be exactly what it was? It's not being a traditionalist. It is more being a realist]
 
I call it lack of Imagination.
 
Most of this improvement will only make this game more interesting and apealing to more members. You can have your Balance scenerios and the rest of us can move on with a improve version of the game. There is no reason we cannot have it both ways. Only lack imagination will keep this program stagnated.
 
Have a good day! 



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 4:06:02 AM)

Sadly, you suffer from that which you accuse others? [8|]

Why "discuss" anything then? I must differ to your superior judgement. [&o]

I'll have to improve my imagination. Then I can catch up to your "Starship Troopering" of a simple and classic game that has withstood the test of time. [>:]

Maybe you had problems with this phrase? "I actually agree with a lot of the improvements. I just think that scale and "feel" need to come into play more than shoving in a lot of "chrome"?"

Say what you will. The test of time will be tested. Future patches will correct any problems. And, you still will be searching for balance, realism, or a laser? Lasers are fun, eh? [:'(]



Jason Petho -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 4:34:46 AM)

oooo... lasers.. what a great idea!

And teleporting Panthers!

Sweet. 1.04 here we come!!

*laughs*

Jason Petho



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 12:40:33 PM)

LOL! *laughs and hugs Jason*

Maybe, if I want to recreate a "reality" scenario, you can add an active volcano? What would an Italian scenario based around Vesuvius be without it's eruption?
How about the ash blocking out the sun? (Wait, I could model that by reducing visibility.) [8|]

Although, I argue to the point of being ridiculous, we can see that there are boundaries in this scale that, as pointed out by others, can be handled by the scenario designer.

Patch 1.04! [X(] I can't wait to e-mail my opponent a file with the words, "Rico! We got us a bug hunt!" I wonder if the Brain Bugs will be included? [;)]




Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 3:36:57 PM)

I have not been Judgmental as a matter of fact I did wrote this There is no reason we cannot have it both ways.
 
 
 



Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 3:42:14 PM)

It seems to me Jason is also misreading me. So in that case I dropping out of this debate. Have it your way and have fun. I have the the feeling the opinions of some members are more valuable than others.



Jason Petho -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 4:04:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miamieagle

It seems to me Jason is also misreading me.



I'm reading you loud and clear.

The thread needed a little humour as it was getting a wee bit serious.

Jason Petho



panda124c -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 8:08:30 PM)

Going back to the original question "What is tactical" perhaps it is best described on a time basis,

If the operation you are performing takes less than 12 hours to complete then it is tactical, if it takes a week it is operational, longer than a week then it is strategic.

Operational goals take multiple intermediate tactical operations to complete, the tactical sets up the final operational goal. Likewise the strategic goal is achieved by using multiple operational goals to set up the strategic goal.

I have noticed that in 'tactical' games it is hard to keep track of time; a one minute turn is hard to understand until you start needing things that take longer than one or two turns.

Example what was the average time delay between calling in an artillery strike from Battalion and just exactly how many turns is that?
If you call in mortar support from the same platoon I would expect maybe five or ten minutes that's five to ten turns in a game with one minute turns.

I have played modern tactical games where it takes 10 to 20 turns to call in an airstrike, depending if the a/c are on call to my command or not.

The point of all this is the in a tactical game what is available and what is not is very dependent on how long it take to get the asset on the target.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it." [:D]




Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 9:32:29 PM)

Perhaps you are right Jason. I hope Mr roadrunner does not take it personal. This only a hobby after all.I love it since I"am spending all this time trying with your help and of other member suggestions to improve it within its concept.

Now as for the Laser gun and spaceships plus UFO I would like to see them in Patch 106.I also would like to see Italian Girls in Bikini once Rome is liberated and a bar store beign represented as well.LoL

I also want to thank you for listening to us and all our request!



dgk196 -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/1/2008 11:34:53 PM)

Once again, I feel that I must apologize to some for getting 'slammed' for just expressing their point of view. I'm getting to the point of not starting any new threads. I really don't even like being associated with a thread that goes 'sour'. That sure wasn't my intent for starting any given thread. Its so depressing!!

quote:

Some think various aspects should be included in a tactical game such as this and of course some take the opposite position. Again, if you please, why?



I guess that I just don't get it! There is a point to bringing up someones 'intelligence' or 'understanding' on any given subject? The only reason for my posting these is to get a feeling for where people might think the game should or should not go! I don't make the decision to incorporate anything into the game! This is just a way of getting a feel for others opinions about the game. Hopefully, the powers that be will read these and make decisions as to if any of these should be added! Again, all of these would be optional. So, if you don't elect to use them they won't effect 'your' game!

Everyone, take it easy...... okay?

Dennis [;)]



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 4:19:04 AM)

Honestly, I take nothing personal. I often exaggerate to make a point. And, my smilies are misunderstood.

I thought the discussion was about what would be good for the scale of the game and not just adding in whatever comes to mind.

Like: I want my vacuum to drive itself and do 200 miles per hour. I think, it would be nice but not practical in it's application. [;)]

I would appreciate a whole lot of "stuff" for Matrix CS. But, I'm not as much impressed by the "chrome" that makes it pretty, as I am with what is under the hood that makes it go fast ... without bugs. [:)]

If I offended anyone by my stated opinion, or hugging of Jason, I sincerely apologize.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 4:21:01 AM)

Does that mean I will not get an erupting volcano? [:'(]



Jason Petho -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 5:56:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Does that mean I will not get an erupting volcano? [:'(]


No, probably not.

But bikini clad Italian women?

Now there's an idea! Save the damsel in distress!

*laughs*

Jason Petho



dgk196 -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 6:11:40 AM)

@ pbear

Interesting. I like the 'time' related concept. As long as it reflected actual abilities and not a 'one size fits all' application! One thing that made the various 'countries' air support was their ability to react, or not react, in a 'timely' manner!

Dennis



1925frank -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 7:09:21 AM)

I've been mulling over the Italian girls in bikinis as well.  It would certainly make Campaign Series unique among tactical combat games.  In campaign games, instead of medals, maybe weeklong passes to Paris or Rome could be awarded.



andym -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 1:52:46 PM)

Oooooooo maybe we could have Bar Brawls between the RN and USN as well??[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]



scottintacoma -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 2:37:03 PM)

I think a better bar brawl would be UMSC versus USN or US Army. Then when the MPs show up it is the brawlers against the MP's.




Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 3:24:22 PM)

Dgk196 you are cool in my book. I think you have a lot of good ideas and its not your fault that some people like me get a bit passionate about some subjects. Take a beer and try to imagine the Italian Girls in Bikini dancing in front of you for your visual pleasure. Now that should relax you. LoL

Keep up your good work and keep posting please!



Miamieagle -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 3:29:12 PM)

MrRoadrunner I thought you where against new Ideas and liked the game basically as is. Now suggesting to add Volcano"s in a new patch is over the top! LoL



paulsalayko -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 3:42:56 PM)

I think the time has come to just say the hell with it and turn JTCS into a first person shooter with space aliens (not the ones pouring across the border) but space aliens...space aliens on t-34s[:D] they can spawn out of the volcano.



Jason Petho -> RE: What is and what is not..... (5/2/2008 4:12:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulsalayko

I think the time has come to just say the hell with it and turn JTCS into a first person shooter with space aliens (not the ones pouring across the border) but space aliens...space aliens on t-34s[:D] they can spawn out of the volcano.


Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but we were saving that for 1.07.

Jason Petho



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125