RE: Bitter Glory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


doomtrader -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/19/2008 7:58:07 PM)

And here is next part of our diary:
http://forum.wastelands-interactive.com/viewtopic.php?t=1408




Missouri Rebel -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/20/2008 6:24:24 AM)

What would be nice for real-time games such as these (and cota, BotB for that matter) would be for the game to stop at the beginning of a predetermined time. i.e 1 day, 3 days, 1 week etc. One that would allow it to be changed in-game for solitare play or switched if/when both parties choose so in multi-player. This would create a CM style strat game where you would essentially be 'watching' your turn unfold. Of course real-time would also be an option. I know that you can pause these already, but why not let the system handle watching the clock? Seems like it could really help out multiplayer games for those that like to micromanage. Another feature might be a pause limit between turns as to control the flow. Certain events would keep the game from resuming in between 'turns' though such as Declaring War/mobilization, large scale initial encounters, quartely intensified nation building etc.

Thinking of the possibilities, each player would be able to view his 'turn' at whatever speed he wanted to, rewinding to view hot spots again.
I really don't know what it takes to code such things, but it seems like many of the elements are already in place.

Or am I not thinking this correctly. I guess that many choices would require a bit of information to be calculated and exchanged prior to executing the turn causing possible load times???

I did like many things of HoI, but the clickfest was more than I could handle. The possibilities of player defined turns would lesson that frustration for me.

mo reb




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/20/2008 8:52:33 PM)


quote:

I did like many things of HoI, but the clickfest was more than I could handle.


I used to change flow of time to fit my own needs :) Combination of "very slow" and "pause" can ease any pain ;)




wosung -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/21/2008 10:13:51 AM)

Yup,

although I do play HOI2 mods, I still think going real time, or "continually pausable" like the fanboys like to call it, is just a bad design decision for 20th century based grand strategy.

Too many things going on.

The engine, originally designed for pre-industrial era land combat, doesn't fit with modern naval and air combat.

Hoi2 with Armageddon and all, is best when playing only on one land front, choosing countries like Russia or Germany.

That's a pity, because IMO, for WW2 Britain/Commenwealth offers the most interesting strategic choices.

Anyway considering Paradox forum I suspect, that a majority of players are Germany fanboys (and about 10 years younger than people over here).

To make 20th century based RT grand strategy work, it needs a lot of work on preconditioned rules of engagement for all sorts of AI assistents. I know they try to work it out for Hoi3, but...

Regards





Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/26/2008 9:24:56 PM)

quote:

I still think going real time [...] is just a bad design decision for 20th century based grand strategy.

Classic turn based games are very attractive, but also have some limitations and flaws and what is most important - sides cannot move simultaneously, and therefore gives benefit to the side which moves first. A designer may find some way to balance the issue, but it always is far from reality, as in real war both sides act at the same time.
If a game won't allow a player to follow its flow, I think the problems is out of real-time itself, but in game design. In case of real-time ones the problem lies within the cycles which are to rule the game. If some of them happen too often the amount information to analyze and action to perform may pin down a player. If a player got some help, if there is an active pause and some atomization and cycles (I mean fight and move, economy and production, diplomacy, etc) are properly set, real-time is a better choice. I'm not saying it is easy to build such a game, but in my humble opinion it is the future.




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (12/27/2008 1:37:37 PM)


We have made a stand alone application to show to anyone a bit of our “self-made” game:



[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/08-12/cfba.png[/img]



If you wish to get to know more just go to http://forum.wastelands-interactive.com/viewtopic.php?p=12828#12828 where you will find the newsest part of my diary, the one named "Plooton” - read the text and download it :)






doomtrader -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/4/2009 3:34:35 PM)

And here we are with the next part of our diary.
http://forum.wastelands-interactive.com/viewtopic.php?t=1438

We are really hoping for some comments from people who are playing strategy games a lot.

[image]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/08-12/kvfn.png[/image]




sullafelix -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/5/2009 5:38:26 PM)

Well from what I've seen and read you've somewhat cured my erectile dysfunction. I'm not a fan of realtime either but I can deal with it.




benpark -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/5/2009 6:28:58 PM)

Real time is going to be a very hard sell for me as well. This is a global game! I don't want to be spinning the globe constantly and missing events.

This may be a "strategy" vs. "wargame" game-play issue. I never liked the Paradox RT games ("Hearts of Iron", etc.), but enjoy AGoD's turn based games at nearly the same scale immensely. Is your target audience the people that like the Paradox type of game play?

How has the computer opponent been improved in regards to your last game (which still leaves much to be desired, even after patching)? I realize they are two separate engines-but the hand of the maker(s) I assume to be the same? If it has, please post concrete examples of the AI in action in the future.

The game certainly LOOKS interesting. I have a new standing rule, however. If a developer hasn't completely made good on their last game (patching the AI, etc.), I won't purchase any more from them. I think you are working on making RtV better, but there's still lots to be done before I consider this new one.




doomtrader -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/5/2009 8:03:58 PM)

quote:

I realize they are two separate engines

Yes, you are right.

quote:

but the hand of the maker(s) I assume to be the same?

Yes, and no.
Wastelands Interactive has got very limited impact on the shape of RtV before it's release. We have started to improve the game after release and currently working over another major update.




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/5/2009 9:36:27 PM)

Regarding ww2:RtV - to dig through the code of other people is a quite complicated task. We are trying to rewrite some parts of the game and it must take some time. Considering both games I would rather say that they are not just based on two different engines, they are written by different programmers in two different ways.




wosung -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/6/2009 10:58:57 AM)

First of all: All the power to you, trying to do such a huge project.

I appreciate every effort to do a good, mature and fun WW2 global grand strategy game. Even if this is the most popular historical period for gaming, such games are still very, very rare.

From what I read in the various forums, your group started doing HOI mods and then, beecause of HOI limits, shifted towards a complete stand alone project.

As to your developer’s diary:

1. The map does look impressive. Personally, I’d like the colours a little more washed out. The pure colours could be called a little bit toy-ish. but that’s a matter of taste. I would also like to see the option of Nato style counters, containing more info.

2. I also like the screen with the unit generator. Using squads as basic numbers will allow the representation of a vast arry of units. It worked with the old Grisby classics Pacific War and War in Russia.

3. Because at present there nearly no info about game mechanisms, it’s just impossible to comment this aspect of your game.

A) I wonder how the naval aspect of your project will work. Most global strategy games, like HOI or (Matrix) World in Flames use sea zones, which come with a certain amount of abstraction. You are planning to use hexes. Lots of hexes. In real time. For me, this sounds like more micromangement, instead of less micromanagement.

B) Same with squad based units: As much I’d like to see them in turn based global strategy, I just can’t imagine bringing them together with real time in a playable manner.

My impression right now is, you’re aiming at a Über Hearts of Iron. All done in one strike. HOI itself is about to reappear in the third version, perhaps refining some of the real childish aspects of this representation of WW2.

So yes, I’m a bit sceptical about your project

But as I said before: All the power to you!

Regards




doomtrader -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/6/2009 1:44:16 PM)

quote:

1. The map does look impressive. Personally, I’d like the colours a little more washed out. The pure colours could be called a little bit toy-ish. but that’s a matter of taste. I would also like to see the option of Nato style counters, containing more info.

You will find them

quote:

2. I also like the screen with the unit generator. Using squads as basic numbers will allow the representation of a vast arry of units. It worked with the old Grisby classics Pacific War and War in Russia.

We like it too :)

quote:

A) I wonder how the naval aspect of your project will work. Most global strategy games, like HOI or (Matrix) World in Flames use sea zones, which come with a certain amount of abstraction. You are planning to use hexes. Lots of hexes. In real time. For me, this sounds like more micromangement, instead of less micromanagement.

You can choose where your navy unit should make the mission. It can be any zone made by of adjacent hexes.

quote:

B) Same with squad based units: As much I’d like to see them in turn based global strategy, I just can’t imagine bringing them together with real time in a playable manner.

In Bitter Glory it will be possible to design your units from platoons. So you can decide how large they are going to be. Also you can merge your units into corps and move them as a one beeign.

quote:

So yes, I’m a bit sceptical about your project

No problem, you can tell every of your friends about how sceptical you are and why. :)

quote:

But as I said before: All the power to you!

Thank you :)
The more, the better.


EDIT: Navy guys just asked me to correct answer for A)




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/6/2009 2:44:37 PM)

quote:

From what I read in the various forums, your group started doing HOI mods and then, because of HOI limits, shifted towards a complete stand alone project.


It is true :)

quote:

1. The map does look impressive. Personally, I’d like the colours a little more washed out. The pure colours could be called a little bit toy-ish. but that’s a matter of taste.


Map is easy to mod. I think you could change it by yourself .

quote:

2. I also like the screen with the unit generator. Using squads as basic numbers will allow the representation of a vast arry of units. It worked with the old Grisby classics Pacific War and War in Russia.


Those game are also on list of our inspirations.

quote:

B) Same with squad based units: As much I’d like to see them in turn based global strategy, I just can’t imagine bringing them together with real time in a playable manner.


Platoon is a replacement of abstracted points of strength. Units as a whole are represented with a set of values. This will be discussed in the following parts of the diary and I don't want to be ahead of schedule ;)




wosung -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/6/2009 3:06:06 PM)

Thank you both for answering.


It remains difficult to comment, simply because of the lack of info – which I fully understand.

So I’ll just wait with curiosity for the combination of seazones/-hexes, realtime and only a little of micromanagement. (No irony intended)

Regards





Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/9/2009 10:12:04 AM)

quote:

It remains difficult to comment, simply because of the lack of info – which I fully understand.


so here comes another part of the diary: http://forum.wastelands-interactive.com/viewtopic.php?p=13283#13283

and a postcard from Denmark ;)

[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/09-01/gwfgahjbn.jpg[/img]




wosung -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/9/2009 11:14:13 AM)

Thank you.


Ok, let me see and take a guess:

Now we have harbors, airfields, cities/production sites, a symbol for food, or control, or in-supply.

Interface reminds me of Hoi (not a bad thing):
Manpower/officers
money, (semi-fabriced) ressources or commodities
military materiel (quite differenciated: different sorts of ammo, supplies, spare parts? )
Facories
Transport assets (quite differenciated)


the icons down on the right, makes it easy to guess thier fiunction



The part from your description above I didn’t get: Sea hexes plus seazones?!Or perhaps I misunderstand?! Only sea hexes are represented on the screen shots. Seazones allow for more general commands to naval forces. I’m curious how to mix zones and hexes. And why?


Hexes give more exact locations and distances than abstracted zones. Hexes are useful mainly for land combat, for most sorts of arial bombing missions, point defence CAP and airborne assoults. For the rest (Naval war, air superiority) the zonal approach does have advantages. For a strategy game it represents in a sufficient way the more spacious and fluid nature of those kinds of warfare.

For most naval warfare (apart form amphibious landings) the exact location of battles on the sea isn’t very important. What matters are the implication for nearby land masses. Plus a zonal approach could be refined like in (Matrix) World in Flames, including naval ranges & speed, Task Force seize, search.

For air superiority: As far I know, in WW2 existed both: mass encounters (like over the Meuse bridges 1940, the Battle of Britain, Mariana Turky shot...) and the everyday micro encounters. The latter is quite nicely abstracted in The operational art of war, with air superiority numbers (for different zones?!)

One of the most childish aspects of HOI was the almost senseless patrol patterns of naval- and airforces: Dull, on duty 24h 7d, always at the wrong spot, when the action began...

One last thought:

One of the realy hard parts to simulate for WW2 is the vast range of force sizes and battle situations:
Eastern Front: Mass encounters between huge Army groups
Pacific: comparable tiny encounters between (sub)division sized units about focal points.

And this is also true for airbases:
Allied bomber offensive: literally hundreds of top notch bases for the heavies with good infrastructure.
Eastern Front: Improvised grass fields where needed
Pacific: Improvised and later on refined bases where it was possible to build them (even if US engineers later on were doing miracles).


Regards




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/9/2009 9:55:49 PM)

quote:

spare parts


yup :)

quote:

Sea hexes plus seazones?!


Rigid sea zones are just for geographical purposes, they group hexes, what makes easier to find ships and in general to wander around the map. Land hexes are also grouped into geographical regions. It has nothing in common with gameplay.

quote:

Hexes give more exact locations and distances than abstracted zones. Hexes are useful mainly for land combat, for most sorts of arial bombing missions, point defence CAP and airborne assoults. For the rest (Naval war, air superiority) the zonal approach does have advantages.


IMHO hexes are a bit underestimated or rather provinces are a kind of temporary “fashion”, which is to weaken soon ;) Advantages you`ve mentioned are only seemingly reserved for provinces. The problem is that people are just used to think so. I really see no problem with making air and naval units to act inside CUSTOMIZED areas and to act in semiautomatic and meaningful way.

I guess, in the future there will be a lot of occasions to talk about navy, air force and its derivations and I hope I will be able to defend the thesis that hexes are better :)

quote:

One of the most childish aspects of HOI was the almost senseless patrol patterns of naval- and airforces: Dull, on duty 24h 7d, always at the wrong spot, when the action began...


IMO it works this way because of using rigid regions with provinces within instead of customized areas or routes of patrolling.

quote:

One of the realy hard parts to simulate for WW2 is the vast range of force sizes and battle situations:
Eastern Front: Mass encounters between huge Army groups
Pacific: comparable tiny encounters between (sub)division sized units about focal points.


Sub divisional level is here, just look at this schematic light brigade - it is several times smaller then the usual 10-15k men divisions. And I `m not to say there will be no divisions, they will be and they will exist simultaneously with smaller entities.




wosung -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/10/2009 11:33:39 AM)

Thank you again for answering. This is fun.


Nothing against hexes. As I mentioned above, I do think, that hexes are more authentic than the bigger zones for most combat situations in a grand strategic game.

And the HOI3 approach is not so different from yours: They just call their “hexes” subprovinces, or whatever (and already are taking Flak, because those subprovinces doesen’t fit into historical provincial geography). And even AGEOD’s WW1 provinces were teased as Alzheimer-hexes because of their irregular, but hex like shape. (no mockery to ill people intended).


For the huge scale of unit sizes: This is why I really like your squadbased approach.


For the spare parts: This I like a lot. (It would be part of my ideal WW2 grand strategy game). Spare parts could help to model all the wear & tear of combat equipment:

-After max 1.000 km of merely moving a Panzer Div. by track not by train, it was more or less kaput. It would have needed a considerable pause for repairs.
-In the Pacific, USAAF, Navy and Marine Airforce were used to cannibalize damaged planes to get the highest number of planes airborne. Japanese air units were badly equipped with spare parts and competent mechanics. (Reasons: not being an thoroughly industrialized country, warrior ethos). Plus: They were not used to cannibalize.
-The German spare part production at least through the second half of the war was low. In 1943 Panther were not really battle ready. Wehrmacht first didn’t have enough towing vehicles for damaged heavy tanks of the new generation. The change of damaged Panther motors first was only done in Berlin(?). Quite a way from Kursk.

Regards




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/10/2009 10:55:46 PM)

quote:

And the HOI3 approach is not so different from yours: They just call their “hexes” subprovinces


Well, it is quit obvious direction - the more detailed a game is the smaller provinces are, the smaller provinces, the more effort is needed to fit them into historical provincial geography and at some point it is just a little bit more clever to choose small recurring zones of the same shape, and we both know in such situation there is no better choice than hexes. I wouldn't be too surprise if in HoI4 all provinces had the same, hex-like, shape ;)
My other conclusion is provinces were substitution to cover weakness of PC, which couldn't handle so many areas, but as we going into era of multicore processors the issue has started to look a bit different.




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/16/2009 8:53:17 AM)

And here comes more...

Not so easy...

Hi! It’s finally a bit warmer. Higher temperature and it’s more pleasant at once, if only someone took this snow from behind my window… Fortunately it will be Summer soon. I hope that temperature in Sweden will also rise soon. ;)

Many of us rest this week, so matters are proceeding somewhat slowly, but before a bigger leap forward there is always a more peaceful moment which allows to rest, gather strength and thoughts. From the other side, even in such a free time in the forge called WI, blacksmiths of war are forging successive pieces of games’ code about second world war.

Continuing the subject of units state, or rather ending this motive before we talk about parameters next week, I’ll add one, important information about platoons – platoons like armored or artillery ones automatically carry in themselves information that they consist of 4 vehicles or “barrels”. So an armored platoon is made up from 4 tanks and an artillery platoon is made up from 4 guns. This information doesn’t have any significant impact on gameplay but it serves to illustrate a unit’s composition which can be quickly examined. It really is a fun feature to able to see before the war how equipment is produced and how units fill themselves with it and their parameters grow. It makes you feel they are real units.

Going back to our light brigade let’s imagine that we want to change it into a light motorized brigade. We click twice in unit panel and a different composition is in force. For example, the difference between our motorized brigade and a foot brigade is made by 3 armoured car platoons, 5 anti-tank gun platoons and 2 light tank platoons, not counting essential trucks for transporting infantry, services and medium mortars.

After replenishment of this brigade its composition will look like this:

- light infantry – 12 platoons, 480 soldiers
- regular infantry – 14 platoons, 560 soldiers

- anti-tank guns – 5 platoons, 20 guns, 100 soldiers
- medium mortars – 4 platoons, 16 mortars, 80 soldiers

- armored cars – 3 platoons, 12 vehicles, 60 soldiers
- light tanks – 2 platoons, 8 tanks, 40 soldiers

- trucks – 75 “platoons”, 300 vehicles
- services – 40 platoons, 1600 soldiers

Altogether: 2920 soldiers, 8 light tanks, 12 armored cars, 20 anti-tank guns, 16 medium mortars, 300 trucks. And this kind of information will be available for every unit it its panel.

In comparison to the last composition the quantity of soldiers increased slightly but unit’s fighting value grew considerably because of the greater mobility, increased anti-tank capabilities and the addition of a little armored component.

We could imagine that in place of trucks the unit would have transporters, instead of artillery and mortars, their mobile counterparts which would make it a mechanized unit, but we could also imagine that instead of trucks (or just a part of them) the unit would consist of light vehicles, motors or even horses or any combination of them which would make this unit a sort of half-motorized cavalry brigade.

To make things less easy there is a catch. If a composition of a unit is changing, for example when it’s replenished, changed, motorized, its fighting value is temporarily decreased in proportion to the introduced changes (in case of such a small unit like our exemplary light brigade, the value will be decreased for a short time, sometimes unnoticeable, if we deal with units with a very high efficiency, changes are small; but in the case of big units and wide changes it can even be several weeks). In addition, composition changes cause experience loss, which is even more painful than temporary disorganization.

***

The Crete, not so easy to defend if we consider its actual length (~260 km):

[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/09-01/havtaarky.png[/img]




Widell -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/16/2009 4:32:31 PM)

Nice! Please say you have NATO counters included as well....




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/16/2009 6:28:44 PM)

quote:

Nice! Please say you have NATO counters included as well....


Not yet, but it is obvious part of the game or rather NATO counters are a must! :)
Also we are considering the third choice - classic counters with icons.




Widell -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/17/2009 9:59:20 AM)

Excellent! Looking forward to this one. Keep up the good work!




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/17/2009 10:55:56 AM)

Hmm I think  I may use counters from ww2:RtV and make a kind of test (in next week) :)




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/23/2009 6:30:09 PM)

Hi. Behind the window finally there is a whiff of the thaw, a kind of temporary ersatz spring. No frost, no snow, but also no sun. The past seven days were as usual. Work, work, work... Do you remember that fortifications are on the edges? So among other features we have finished that week, there is one which allows to build complicated lines of fortifications as a single production. Building very long lines of fortifications now is easy and takes only a little space in the building queue of the production window :) Feature connected with building roads works the same way.
***
I was born in the country under protection of a big red “brother”. Words like puppet military regime come into mind, but it would be off the pointif I was to explore this political motive any further.
Big brother and propaganda are an inseparable pair. As a kid I used to watch TV novel called “Four tank men and a dog“(“Czterej pancerni i pies”) which is a kind of merger of ”Company of brothers” and “Lassie Come Home”.The film was realized in the `60 and follows the adventures of a tank crew (as in the title) and their T-34 tank. The Second World War shown in the series was far from the real one, in many ways problematic from the standpoint of military realism, sometimes almost grotesque. Not mentioning doubtful examples of friendship with Soviet Army and constant tribute to it, this tank was the best!
In the next years, but still in formative ones, I saw many Discovery-like films glorifying T-34 and the Soviet army. In one of these there was a sentence which woke me from that propaganda dream: “Zhukov was the greatest general, in the battle of Berlin he had 300 thousand wounded and killed soldiers out of 500 thousand who started the battle.” Greatest ever general with casualties of 60% in a single battle???
I started to check things on my own...
It was almost 20 years ago. I was living in the country with centralized economy, which now is no longer like that, but a lot of personal experience connected with a “people’s realm” is still in my memory. I remember Soviet goods like tv sets, bikes, watches, tools, cars... All were almost the same poor quality and not very reliable... All were produced in time of peace in normal factories by qualified staff.
And here come the question - how come in a war time economy in factories moved behind the Ural, in situation when rare resources and materials were often replaced with ersatz, unqualified personnel could build super extra reliable T-34 tank which was so many times vaunted? Is it a miracle or a lie?
There are two very interesting reports made by Soviets in Kubinka where T-34 was compared to just bought Pz III (an ally sold a tank to another ally) and Americans in Aberdeen where T-34 gifted by Stalin (he was pressed a bit to do it) was examined. Both were crushing. Soviet top secret report said that Pz III is better than T-34. It is not a mistake...More or less: T-34 had better amour (but considerably weaken by two big holes on its front - a MG and a hatch) and main gun, had comparable speed, but was unreliable, uncomfortable, had a very short-living engine (40-100 working hours!), had poor aiming systems, its combat compartment was badly ventilated (after a few shots it was full of smoke and the crew was hardly able to do anything), gear was very difficult to operate - to change gears one needed to use 10kg hammer... so driver used to use just the second gear and it hastened breakdowns, bad designed air filters reduced the power of the engine (engine used to choke continually so very rarely T-34 was able to go as deftly as masses believe). Even sloped side walls of the hull offered protection no significantly greater then its counterparts, but caused lack of space inside the tank, for example ammunition was usually kicking around on the floor of combat compartment and aggravated fighting ability of the tank crew. American report pointed out the same weakness of T-34.

Interesting fact which indirectly confirmed such revelations is that Soviet guard units were using Shermans. If M4 had been worse than T-34, they wouldn’t have been using Shermans ;) They were more reliable, more comfortable and had better aiming systems and some more advantages.

There is a WW2 era proverb (used in Polish People’s Army) : “ZiS 5 (truck) – downhill it goes, uphill it must be pushed” ;) This is not far from truth about an average T-34.

The greatest tyrant of XX century, or greatest tyrant ever lived on Earth, Stalin said: “Quantity has its own quality”. For a very long time true sense of his words was clouded by the fog of propaganda slogans. Here comes the revealed truth of the myth of the great soviet weapon. The power of T-34 lies in other place - it was available in large quantities*. It did not matter that almost 50% of the tanks could brake down in the eve of battle, if there were thousands of them ;) It did not matter they were barely operational, if an average tank was destroyed by the enemy after just a several days of service.
As comparison to the quality of American production (M4 Sherman in mind) we could do an interesting in-mind exercise/test: let`s imagine we have two players in 1943: Player A has 100 M4 and B has 100 T-34. Lets imagine that in the eve of the battle 5% of M4 and 50% of T-34 tanks cannot arrive to the battlefield because of quality/breakdowns ... Maybe I should add that firepower and protection in both tanks are on the same level. Would you like to play as A or B?

Now we are even closer to “Bitter Glory”. We have tanks in the game. We can have tanks from different countries in one unit. We can compare tanks from different countries. This long introduction was made to show why well equipped tank, but of a very low quality (do you remember the field called “quality” in the platoon constructor?) may have lower “soft attack” or “hard attack” than other with a smaller gun or with just not as advanced gun of the same caliber. If we look into the M4/T-34 theoretical comparison the shock will be lesser ;)

Let’s talk for a while about Land Lease and level of tank production/destruction in Soviet Union. If we compare the number of tanks destroyed, produced and sent by Allies,  we have an interesting figure – final number of tanks in Soviet army after WW2 wasn't significantly greater then the number of tanks sent by the Allies. If we would also consider quality of American tanks and change all tanks into abstract points, who knows if without the help of the Allies the final Soviet score would have been under 0. If there was no LL who now knows what would be the fate of the war in the East...With no locomotives, wagons, rails, trucks, (only ZiS5 instead of a very reliable American trucks), steel, chemicals, food and other countless goods, Soviet tank production would be smaller...
This is another point from long BG list. While playing SU pray for LL or else...
Looking from the other point if we have an average amount of medium quality equipment, but very good doctrines and leaders, we can conquer a lot like Germans did, if we have abundant of equipment, but poor, weak leaders and weak doctrines we are in hopeless situation, until we change something. Soviet army was changing its doctrines in good direction, German had the best ones in the beginning of WW2 and during the course of the war was changing them into worse. I don't know why in games this is always somewhat different or even contrary. It is time to change it :) The doctrinal issue will be discused many times in the future :) See you next Friday in the next part of the diary !

*If we understand the issue of Soviet “quality” and add 3 shifts workday the “miracle” of Soviet productivity becomes less impressive. German industry was stronger then Soviet, but they didn't work overnight, produced much greater quantity of non-military goods and its production was of greater quality. That’s why they were out-produced. The other thing is the kill ratio which was 1 German tank for 3-4 Soviet tanks (various data can be found).

_____

This screen is to show very early version of NATO counters (not too pretty in fact, but there have been some questions about them). Also notice it is the screen taken from windowed mode of the game.

[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/09-01/hivbbkqdd.png[/img]




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/30/2009 7:50:29 PM)

"Deadly, deadlier, deadliest weapons"

Hi. Here is the 10th part of the blog? Are you looking forward to the next forty posts? ;)

Today there is no info about weather and such. Only pure facts, no waffling. ;)

Let’s focus on the platoons' parameters. As mentioned earlier there are five basic combat parameters :


1. soft attack
2. hard attack
3. ground defense
4. air attack
5. air defense


These parameters should be familiar, and there is no need to explain their meaning. You may view them in the “platoons constructor”. They are present in a unit in parameters of the same name, but also expand into some others, more surprising like “artillery attack”. There are more generic parameters like speed, production cost, time to produce, which should be familiar also.

But what the heck does the unit “Value” mean? Is it also apparent or is something more behind it? This question was answered by one of my friends, why not answer it publicly?


Before World War Two many countries were dependent on weapons bought abroad. During the war other weapon sources became available as alliances shifted. An Army used weapons from many sources, at the same time. For example Romanian army around 1941 had French, German, Polish and, I'd guess, some weapons of other origin. There are more examples like Polish, Finish, Spanish and others. Even the German army used any available equipment, from captured nations, and even captured individual weapons. I always dreamed of such a game where in one army various weapons are present, and now my dream comes true...


While designing the game I was wondering how to implement this issue? How to make a flexible system without fixed models? How to make a system which allows one to upgrade and replace units with equipment from various sources, bought abroad, gained thought combat, and looted from captured logistic centers. At the same time I wished to give the player an ability to compare platoons without redundant analysis. Thus the “Value” came, a simple solution. Technically it is a sum of combat parameters. This is a powerful tool to adjust your unit.


How does this work? While a unit is forming or replacing its losses, the game compares “values” of platoons. There is no discrimination against origin. The best platoons in logistic center are picked and sent to the unit.


While the unit is at full strength and there is a possibility to change some of the platoons for even better ones, then it just happens. But sometimes what happens is that we are offered new equipment, but it is worse then the older equipment. For example German PzIV J was a bit worse than PzIV H (it was simplified in order to rise production, the most important difference was the removal of the electrical turret rotating engine – in PZIV J crew had to do it manually). So when a unit is at full strength and a new model, but weaker are available, a unit may turn its nose up and say - “I don't need that new crap, I will stick to the old one, until I have a need for replacements” ;) Such unit behavior is a kind of spin-off, but quite interesting.

***

A world map in hex editor, all hexes were set by one man....

[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/09-01/kckriqrsg.png[/img]
[img]http://screen.bitterglory.com/in/09-01/qimwealrn.png[/img]




Missouri Rebel -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/30/2009 10:48:41 PM)

Originally posted by Anraz
quote:

all hexes were set by one man....


And when does he get checked out of the cracker barrel? Really though, it is impressive to think of one man doing all that. Must have been maddening.

mo reb




sullafelix -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/30/2009 11:09:55 PM)

So much info is used by authors to prove their thesis. I have read all my life that Kursk was the death of the Panzer force. Yet I have two newer books that have data that shows the Germans had more tanks after Kursk in the divisions involved than before the battle.




Anraz -> RE: Bitter Glory (1/31/2009 9:55:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel
Originally posted by Anraz
quote:

all hexes were set by one man....

And when does he get checked out of the cracker barrel? Really though, it is impressive to think of one man doing all that. Must have been maddening.
mo reb


The man is fine. He is a geographer and really likes it. There is no need to concern about his mental health ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
So much info is used by authors to prove their thesis.


Well, it gives you an opportunity for discussion about the foundations of the game. It is better to have some info while making  a game placed in historical realm, than don't have any or have too little ;) I hope in the future there will be no data which shows that Pz IV J was better or that German army didn't use captured equipment ;) It is kind of a sarcasm (please forgive me for it), but I use it to underline that I try to choose only very solid information.

quote:

I have read all my life that Kursk was the death of the Panzer force. Yet I have two newer books that have data that shows the Germans had more tanks after Kursk in the divisions involved than before the battle.


For many years it was in no ones affair to point out that despite the heavy bombardment the German production was rising in 1943 (~12'000 tanks) and 1944 (~19'000 tanks produced). If we take under consideration tank production in 1942 (~6'000 tanks) we may guess that in the second part of 1943 (or after Kursk) at least 7'000-8'000 tanks were produced. It could be interesting to know the exact period of time taken under consideration in those books.


Regarding bombardments, they were successful, but in other ways (which are now omitted, willingly or unwillingly). Bombardment absorbed a lot of German efforts. If I remember correctly in August 1944 there were ~12'000 heavy AA guns in service and about a million people in Flak-like formations, not mentioning fighters, which couldn't be used in the east. Heavy AA guns were very costly in use ormaybe  even very inefficient, but if a country has no fuel for fighters also have no other choice. I read somewhere that ~8'000 shells were needed to shot down one bomber. If the Germans hadn't had to defend their homeland against bombing runs, they would have moved the guns and planes to the East. Several thousands of 88's firing on T-34's could mean something... not mentioning fighters and the excess of ammunition (in the second part of the war German artillery was short on ammo, if the Germans hadn't had to produce a lot of AA ammo they would have produced much more shells for the artillery).




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.361328