Game Complexity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Combat Command Series



Message

kam99 -> Game Complexity (3/29/2011 5:29:26 PM)

Still on the fence over this.

I am getting mixed messages over the complexity of the game. Some threads describe it as a grognards game. Another takes an opposing view.

I am looking for a game with depth, but not too much complexity. Something along the lines of Wargame Contstruction Set: Tanks; Steel Panthers; the Combat Mission Series; Panzer Command Kharkov. I realise it is a counters game and those are not. However, the counters games I have tried (War in the East and TOAW) are too complicated for my liking.

Regards,

kam



spelk -> RE: Game Complexity (3/29/2011 7:47:18 PM)

This is definitely in the Steel Panthers league of games, in my opinion.



kam99 -> RE: Game Complexity (3/29/2011 9:26:06 PM)

Thanks.

Downloaded the Danger Forward demo. Currently playing the Palermo scenario. It looks quite intuitive. The info on the counters seems a little abstract. My armoured units just show their designation as 'Tanks'. Is there a way of getting more information?

Many thanks for all your help.

kam



Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 2:29:48 AM)

Kam I'm a little confused. All the info you need to know should be presented when you select your counter.

[image]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8604/abstractt.png[/image]

BTW, the red numbers show you which hexes will expend too much movement, causing you to fail any posture changes (I wish more games even today could have supported this!).

The only thing that MAY seem abstract is the AT and Armor ratings. These are set by the scenario designers, after they've done their research on the make-up and status of the historical companies. There are tables in the manual to be used as a guide for popular axis & allied vehicles in reference to their AT numbers, and armor ratings.





sabre1 -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 3:19:48 AM)

Makes sense to me, and I would think if you make a flexible system that can simulate many types of WWII battles, that you would need this slight abstraction.

I love this game/scale. I'm in game heaven, and with JMass's graphics updates, it's going to be a beautiful thing when he eventually turns his full attention to the project like he did with RGW's maps.

Why Matrix could not have made the changes before the game was released I have no idea, but hey I would have bought it anyway. It's grognard goodness.



sabre1 -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 3:20:46 AM)

Still would like a printed manual.

I know Joe98, don't beat me up.



boatrigm -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 3:55:46 AM)

Printed manual would have been nice. I have to go buy more ink for my printer this weekend so I can print it out. Would have been worth another $10-20 for a manual.

-Mike



Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 8:47:27 AM)

Well, you just had to mention it... now you are making me go wayyyy off-topic here....

I just went and bought another printer this year AGAIN.  I remember way back in the days of dot-matrix you'd buy a printer once, and keep it forever. The ink-ribbon was cheap as hell to replace also. Unfortunately, the manufacturers ran the biggest con in the industry ever and we were forced to get horrible ink-jets. I've never seen one (ever) that had decent quality over what I used to have 20 years ago as a kid even. Furthermore, the damn costs are so outrageous now for a simple ink-pack.

Over the years I basically bought a new printer each year and threw out the other one, since the price of the printer is cheaper than the ink, so I'd just look for a good deal which gave you free ink with the printer. But just a few days ago I FINALLY picked up my first laser. They are 1/10'th the price they used to be when I was in highschool, looks like my shop & drop days in this department are finally over. You see, the milage on laser toner is in far excess of the scam you get with ink-jet.






Fred98 -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 12:36:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabre1

Still would like a printed manual.

I know Joe98, don't beat me up.



I work for a company that has a colour printer.

How many copies do you want? [8D]
-




hank -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 2:02:23 PM)

Looking at the unit info in the screen shot ... how do you tell if the unit is at full strength or not? Units use steps if I remember another post correctly, not numbers of individual items (soldiers, tanks, guns, etc.).

What number on that pop up or where do you find out how your unit is doing? ... has it lost half its tanks ... or men ... is it close to being wiped out ...

I'm assuming the MPs are movement points ... that unit has 9 left out of a max of 21 ... ?
Current Hits 3/3 ... what does that mean?

thanks




junk2drive -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 2:08:24 PM)

The upper right section is three green lights for full strength.



Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 3:11:14 PM)

The three dips, or hits, or lights, or platoons (whatever you want it to be), shows you that you're up to full strength. They'll turn red when you lose em. The only other way you won't be up to full strength is if you have any disruption levels.

Keep in mind though, some companies may only have a max of 1 or 2 platoons.

So... if your counter has two green PIPS (as TOAW fans call it), and one turns red after an assault, you've just lost half your men/vehicles in that company (permanently).

If you are suffering disruption, that's only temporary, assuming you can get out of E-ZoC and then there will be a roll to see how much you can shake off. This is the primary reason for using the Tactical Reserve posture, since it gives you a significant bonus to removing as much disruption as possible in a single phase.




kam99 -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 5:14:01 PM)

Obsolete,

Thanks for the reply. By 'abstract' I meant the term 'tanks'. Is there any way of establishing what type of tanks they are? Either the model of tank, or at least whether they are light, medium or heavy. In a grand tactical game that seems to me to be fairly important.

Regards,

kam



hank -> RE: Game Complexity (3/30/2011 10:46:50 PM)

Thanks

I looked through some of the AARs and see that a unit can have one Pip, two or three. In Guadalcanal I notice all the US armor is one Pip.

In a couple of the others armor can have two or three pips; all artillery seems to have one pip; etc etc.

Is the number of Pips an indication of resilence? In other words, a unit with one Pip seems to be easier to destroy than one with one Pip. Can an armored unit with one pip be destroyed easier than an armored unit with three ?? (as I read those questions, they seem dumb but I'm still wanting to know the answer ... I think I know ... please forgive)

And/Or is the number of pips an indication of quantity and strength?
i.e., three pip armor has three companies ... one pip armor has one company but what if that one pip armor is a company of Tiger Ie's that may be hard to destroy ... and you have a unit with three pips in the same battle with three companies of Pz IIIs. I'm sure those strength numbers are indicated somewhere else in the game.

I'm also interested in the answer to Kam99's question



Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/31/2011 3:38:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kam99

Obsolete,

Thanks for the reply. By 'abstract' I meant the term 'tanks'. Is there any way of establishing what type of tanks they are? Either the model of tank, or at least whether they are light, medium or heavy. In a grand tactical game that seems to me to be fairly important.

Regards,

kam


Kam, I don’t think you are looking at the scale just right. Companies with vehicles often are made up of varying classes of them, and often include classes for various secondary purposes, and so on. It would be very rare to say, find a company made up of only Mark IV tanks, and so on. I’m not saying it never happened... but it doesn’t always work out that way.

Even in a very highly specialized heavy-tank company with a name of say.... SS-Tiger xx, it is still going to most likely be predominately made up of older heavy Panzers, mixed in with the Tigs. And then some...

It is the scenario designer, who after doing his research to the best of his ability as to the assets within these companies... who should do a weighted average and then assign the proper settings to these counters. This would include the mobility factors, size, armour rating, AT, fire-power, defense, quality, and so on.

For starters, I would predominantly focus more on your Att/Def values and keep it simple, rather than getting over-whelmed by too much info. Later on, if you’re trying to make your mark in the ladder rankings, you can then start to fine-tune into the other details & mechanics more.






Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/31/2011 4:00:06 AM)


quote:

Is the number of Pips an indication of resilence? In other words, a unit with one Pip seems to be easier to destroy than one with one Pip. Can an armored unit with one pip be destroyed easier than an armored unit with three ??


Well, a lot of this DEPENDS!

Obviously, if you KNOW your opponent is going to score a 'HIT', then having a company with two pips over just one is the dominant choice, since the latter will be destroyed, while the former can limp to safety and live to fight Stalingrad another day (haha)!

Here's the problem... what if the smaller sized company has a much higher quality & firepower ratings, amoung other things. What if it is dug in to a fortification level of 3, and is in very good defensive terrain, etc. So many other factors can come into play, so it DEPENDS! That smaller sized company MAY be able to survive through a lot more punishment than the larger one.

As a rule of thumb, GENERALLY having a larger company means having more protection and strength, but this is JUST a rule of thumb, an not a solid rule. A very good example of this, let's say you are a field commander, and your War-Arms Board has started to deliver your fancy-schmancy armoured company they promised, but you have a choice:

Two platoons of Shermans, or one platoon of Tigers.









Obsolete -> RE: Game Complexity (3/31/2011 5:21:22 AM)

Well, on a similar manner I decided to brush off some more old nostalgia, and do a little comparison with another classic (TOAW) in regards to some of this COUNTER COMPOSITION business.

Note from the 501 heavy Pz, we see there is a breakup, with more tanks belonging to the Pz IIIL class. Now, let's admit something, this is one step-up from company level, as we're battalion level here, but things don't get much simpler than this as far as the breakdown goes.

Ok, Ok.... so in Kasserine 43 there is an assault-gun battalion made up of ONLY one Stug class. But keep in mind, IIRC in that scenario the Axis were forced to come up with some almost fictitious army overnight, which was pieced together from just scrap and wrecks laying about. So that may tell you something.

If you do a unit report on companies, you'll see often around 10 or so different classes of assets with each. Sometimes, when we remember growing up on Panzer General titles we get conditioned to think of counters containing just one type of a specific unit. After all, the stats just showed ONE unit, and we PURCHASED that unit with all our prestige. So it can only be just ONE unit, or perhaps a GROUP of units--but only ONE type of unit.

BTW, now that I took a look at TOAW again I really want to play it bad, the problem? The problem is I haven't played in ages again because I kept getting so put-off by all the big holes that get found in the whole BLACK-BOX system which the user is simply left to TRUST that computer is handling it all correctly (when does that ever work?). And the other problem, is of having my entire turn wiped out because one unit decided for some foolish reason to burn off all my allotted time due to some non-sense elsewhere which could have no bearing what-so-ever on where it counts.

Anyhow, enough ranting on TOAW, despite it was Wargame of the year in 98, and all the rants and raves on how this new time-alotted battle system was supposed to be the next big thing in the future of war-gaming, I am VERY glad that the hype dropped down and it can be considered a flop in that regard. There are a lot of good qualities in it though in other matters...

[image]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6574/tigers.png[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.062988