RE: First Impressions, please! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Lock ‘n Load: Heroes of Stalingrad



Message

markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/18/2014 12:46:19 AM)

quote:

The beauty of PC gaming is one can dispense with the gamey stuff that was necessary with a board game because now the PC can do all the calculations no one wanted to do with a board game.


Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/18/2014 1:32:49 AM)

Playing mostly bear and bretzel strategy game in my younger time, I started to be interested in the tactical scale not even with a strategy game, but with the shooter Brothers in Arms (played all of them). At first, I played it like Call of Duty, and of course, got killed many times. But when I understood how to use the fire team to support the assault team, wow, I got hooked by the tactical scale. If I remember correctly, there was a mission where I didn't kill any enemy, just a bit of suppression fire, and giving orders to my teams, calling targets on one and sending the other on the flank or throwing grenades. The German were constantly moving to backward positions, loosing one man or two in the process...

Back to HoS, the game is well done, it's fun, the rules are efficient and easy to learn, and I certainly do not yet master all the details, but yes, I do miss suppression fire.



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/18/2014 8:07:04 AM)

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]



SilliusSodus -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/18/2014 11:21:46 AM)

So far Stalingrad is exactly what I wanted to see in a digital lock n load game. It’s a very good representation of the board game. Even where it is different, I might see how some of those small changes would work in the board game. The AI is competent enough and I still have to use the same kind of tactics I would use face to face. The release is very stable as well I haven’t encountered any bugs (although I have mostly been playing the stand alone scenarios)
In other words I’m biased I love the board game and wanted Stalingrad to be a representation of that and that’s what I got with a reasonably clean interface and passable AI so yeah I’m really happy with the game



Harv -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/18/2014 12:26:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]


I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:21:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

I love Brothers in Arms. Played the first one through to the end. An aquaintence of mine, John Antal was the advisor, and wrote the script for the game.

There are three scenarios in the Soviet campaign that allow fire at unseen targets, but there's a reason. You'll see. [;)]


Hell's Highway is the best! [;)] Characters feel less like robots.

What are the reasons behind the spotting rule? Why not allowed units to fire at target, at least when we know they are there? At first, it seems strange not to be able to shoot at a position where I strongly suspect the presence of enemy units.

Can't wait to know the reason why we're allowed in those three scenarios!



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:32:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harv

I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.


Are you talking about that book?
http://www.amazon.ca/Armor-Attacks-Interactive-Small-Unit-Leadership/dp/0891413839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392780659&sr=8-1&keywords=Armor+Attacks%3A+The+Tank+Platoon%3A+An+Interactive+Exercise+in+Small-Unit+Tactics+and+Leadership

Funny, because it was in my wish list.



76mm -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:50:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker
Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.


Not sure about that, as far as I know it was a pretty standard tactic, at least in the US and Russian armies, to spray suspected enemy positions with fire, often lots of fire.

And this is not to mention that we can't even area fire on units that we've fired on in previous impulses but haven't spotted yet in this impulse.



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 3:13:58 AM)

I recall in the movie Full Metal Jacket that marines were shooting a lot of bullets through windows not even knowing what and how much force was behind. Remember the young Vietnamese girl?



z1812 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 4:42:02 AM)

In regards to area fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

Nothing gamey about it. You wouldn't waste that ammo in real life, you shouldn't in the game. Real life you scout, game you scout. It's purfect.


You are mistaken. It is a commonly known tactic that in addition to being called area fire, is known as speculative fire, recon by fire, covering fire, or suppressive fire. It is used as a tactic for a defined purpose and would not be considered as a waste of ammunition.



Gizuria -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 10:49:06 AM)

Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC. It's likely that the board game doesn't have Area/Prep fire and therefore it isn't in the PC game either. Fans of the board game might not like having their game tampered with in this fashion

It's probably safe to say that no military hoses down every potential enemy-occupied location with area fire before exposing their troops to fire. That might be the thinking here too. Not saying I agree but if it had Prep Fire/Area Fire, it sure would feel a LOT more like ASL.

Of course, that's different from not being able to fire on a location where we already know there are enemy units. Having to rediscover the same unit in the same location each turn isn't how I'd do it. I'd probably have the unit remain visible in the following turn unless it takes some action to conceal itself, i.e. moves from one hex to another using Low Crawl. But making changes like this would make the game very different from the original board game. The board game fans are obviously happy with it being like this.



Schnaufer -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 10:56:22 AM)

I find that on easiest mode, those partisans sure shoot great. Maybe Russians didn't need regular army [:(]


Hopefully after many more games I will see the fun others are expressing.

Have a good day [:)]



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 12:27:30 PM)

Just throwing ideas, a suppression/area fire on a unit could prevent or reduced the effect to return fire...



Richie61 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 12:34:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog
Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC.


This [:)]



z1812 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 12:46:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richie61

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog
Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point because it's a port of a board game to the PC.


This [:)]



I can agree with the above and it is a reasonable explanation.

However there is a difference between a game play decision and area fire being explained away as being something that isn't practiced in reality.



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 1:48:04 PM)

Well, they added the flanking fire rule (and some others, from what I read). I'm looking for games that give me some degree of realism (being able to apply true tactics). If the actual rules allow that, I'm fine with this. But I'm not going to discuss this further as I'm not a game designer nor a tactician, and in the end it's designer and buyer's choice.



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:37:33 PM)

On the spotting mechanic... The spotting mechanics are a key element, and one in which I completely believe in. I feel that the idea of area fire is an ASL idea, not a real-life tactic. I talked with a lot of combat vets while in the war college, and I can promise you that the order "Hey guys, lets show everyone where we are by firing on that building because I **think** there might be someone there," is just NOT an order than is given. Enemy positions are revealed by careful observation (Spotting attempts), scouting (moving adjacent), or attempting to draw fire while maintaining cover (moving through covered terrain).

Spotting represents having enough of a fix on your target to fire. Unlike in gaming, the combat vets I've spoken to are very reluctant to fire at "areas" because doing so reveals their position to the enemy. That is the whole idea behind spotting. You have to consider if it is worth revealing your position to fire on an enemy position.



z1812 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:49:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macob30

Well, they added the flanking fire rule (and some others, from what I read). I'm looking for games that give me some degree of realism (being able to apply true tactics). If the actual rules allow that, I'm fine with this. But I'm not going to discuss this further as I'm not a game designer nor a tactician, and in the end it's designer and buyer's choice.


+1



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 2:53:32 PM)

Well, there is certainly nothing magical about being a game designer. Y'all's ideas have as much merit as mine. That doesn't mean I'll agree with them, but neither will I dismiss them out of have.



Harv -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 5:49:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macob30

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harv

I remember working through some "game books" back in the 90‘s to do with small unit tactics (infantry and armour I believe), and I think they were written by a John Antal. They were very interesting, and if I remember right, I died a lot with them too. Same Fellow I assume, and now I wish I'd played Brothers in Arms.


Are you talking about that book?
http://www.amazon.ca/Armor-Attacks-Interactive-Small-Unit-Leadership/dp/0891413839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392780659&sr=8-1&keywords=Armor+Attacks%3A+The+Tank+Platoon%3A+An+Interactive+Exercise+in+Small-Unit+Tactics+and+Leadership

Funny, because it was in my wish list.


Yep! That's the one. Might even hazard going through the boxes in the basement and take them for a spin again.



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 6:06:10 PM)

quote:

But it is not ASL.


Yay! Someone agrees with me. [&o]



midgard30 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/19/2014 11:26:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

On the spotting mechanic...


Thanks for the explanation.



smb1968 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 2:11:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

On the spotting mechanic... The spotting mechanics are a key element, and one in which I completely believe in. I feel that the idea of area fire is an ASL idea, not a real-life tactic. I talked with a lot of combat vets while in the war college, and I can promise you that the order "Hey guys, lets show everyone where we are by firing on that building because I **think** there might be someone there," is just NOT an order than is given. Enemy positions are revealed by careful observation (Spotting attempts), scouting (moving adjacent), or attempting to draw fire while maintaining cover (moving through covered terrain).

Spotting represents having enough of a fix on your target to fire. Unlike in gaming, the combat vets I've spoken to are very reluctant to fire at "areas" because doing so reveals their position to the enemy. That is the whole idea behind spotting. You have to consider if it is worth revealing your position to fire on an enemy position.

Mark,
I get the notion of the spotting mechanic in the game reflecting the fact that squads don't fire all the time at everything around them, but I don't get why you lose that "spot" you made on the next turn. Why couldn't it be made easier to spot a previously spotted unit (maybe a -1 on the roll for spotting a previously spotted unit that hasn't moved in the interim)? I just don't get why a squad would "forget" the location of a unit they just fired out 5 minutes before. Love the game, though.

Scott



Grotius -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 5:40:04 AM)

Isn't the idea that the enemy is a moving target, even if it stays in the same hex? It peeks out of windows, then ducks back in; it finds new cover; it tries actively to become unspotted. I really like the spotting rules the way they are, though I wouldn't object to a -1 die roll mod on successive spotting attempts.



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 11:18:11 AM)

SMB and Grotius,

You are both right. As I posted elsewhere (but can't find it). Let's say that you are using a stone wall for cover (dangerous because of the chips, but okay if you have goggles, but way too much detail), anyway... you lift, aim (if you can) and fire. Only a fool then raises again in the same place. Veteran troops will slightly shift their position before raising again. Similar things happen in buildings.

quote:

get why you lose that "spot" you made on the next turn. Why couldn't it be made easier to spot a previously spotted unit (maybe a -1 on the roll for spotting a previously spotted unit that hasn't moved in the interim)?


I can see that, and we might put it in. Same unit spotting same unit, gets a -1 on the die roll.



smb1968 -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 1:54:20 PM)

Thanks for the explanation Mark. And whether you change the spotting rules or not, I really appreciate your willingness to come on the forum and respond to questions about the game engine -- you seem to be a truly class act.
Scott



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 5:39:01 PM)

Id like you to consider the -1 for spotting also and or a -1 for hidden units that fired in the previous turn. It is often very harsh on the attack when you have to get a good roll to spot, another good roll to hit and a third to do damage. A more subtle hidden state seems like a good area to look at.



markhwalker -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 6:34:03 PM)

Thanks, Scott. Rebel... I might not understand what you are saying. After a hidden unit is revealed (placed on the map) it stays revealed (but not necessarily spotted) as long as a friendly has it in its LOS. Am I missing something?



phatkarp -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 6:48:39 PM)

Never played LnL before. Got it, played the first two German scenarios on "normal". Lost a couple times along the way before succeeding. (Hot Tip: Driving a PzIV into a house can cause the house to collapse onto your PzIV)

Anyways, I'm loving it and I'm having a great time with it. I'm hoping you can do another podcast with 3MA so they can tell you how awesome your game turned out!



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: First Impressions, please! (2/20/2014 7:04:56 PM)

I should have said revealed instead of hidden.

The -1 makes sense for spotting with the same unit on the next turn. What I'm saying wouldn't it also make sense that any spotting against a unit that fired in the last turn to also have an additional -1? IMO, they are not actively seeking to hide and have revealed themselves more than a unit that was merely spotted but is not firing. Shaken units being spotted would not qualify for this and units that were staying low (not firing) would benefit on their spotting rolls. I just feel that the units in cover enjoy too many benefits in addition to the TEM's.

I like the spotting mechanic in the game as it does add some realism and versatility. But is it too much of a deciding factor where attacks become stalled by a common roll too often?

Merely suggestions to consider. Of course the integrity of the system must be safeguarded first and foremost.

mo reb




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.453125