(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket

Message

e_barkmann -> (3/4/2003 8:02:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Now that we have computer games, the dice should be 10 sided, or 20 sided or 100 sided. I hate to see a good move destroyed by a bad dice roll. But its OK if a good move is slightly damaged by a bad dice roll.[/QUOTE] Joe, I think you questions/suggestions have been generally covered by Roger Keating via [URL=http://www.wargamer.com/wachtamrhein/wishlist.asp]Wacht am Rhein[/URL] This was quite a while ago when work was being done on TAO 2.x. This quote by Roger I found particularly relevant: " In games that I have played I have found that luck plays little part in whether I get to the Meuse or not. It does affect how I get there. In any game there has to be an element of luck. We wanted to make a player who throws a '1' feel low and one that throws a '6' feel good. I think we have accomplished this." I think you will find the editor will allow you to change numerous values such as steps and crt results, but I will expand on this at the appropriate time. Cheers, Chris

Rob Gjessing -> Those Flags on the maps (3/4/2003 12:58:44 PM)
A while back someone asked about what the flags on the map were (I think it was in the KP ARR thread) anyway.. here is some background : Taken from an email referring to the Ardennes Scenario in KP.. "Yes, the flags are very significant. If you capture an objective (as the Germans) with a US flag the US will receive either extra units or, in this case, extra reinforcements. You get the points. Therefore as the Germans you should be trying to take the German flag cities as they give you advantages, in the way of extra replacements and units, as well as points."

e_barkmann -> (3/4/2003 1:21:13 PM)
My turn 9 write up (sending your way tonite Rob) will include an explanation on the subject of Objectives, Replacements and Alert points... and those flags... cheerz Chris [edit: Objectives is correct wording, victory locations is wrong]

Fred98 -> (3/5/2003 6:06:37 AM)
Quote; ============================================== The turns column now allows the scenario designer to allocate up to 3 separate periods in which rewards for the Axis player may be specified. As you can see, if the Axis player captures Bastogne he will get 10 vp's per turn between turns 1-12 and a once-off Capture bonus of 50 points. Note how the vp's and capture bonus drop if the Axis player captures the town at a later point in the game. The Alert Points area displays that if captured during turns 1-12, the Axis player will get 15 step replacement points and 7 Alert Unit points. The Flag to the right indicates what side are awarded the Alert Points - in some cases, although the Axis player might get vp's and capture points for capturing an objective, the enemy force might get rewarded the Alert points. You can see this easily by looking at the tactical map - Alert Points are awarded to the side as indicated by the Flag next to the objective. =========================================== What is needed in the game, is an information screen similar to those found in Uncommon Valour. It would list all the objectives and how many points they are worth on any given turn. Then I would sort the list by turn number and then I know which objectives I need to secure, or can afford to vacate, during the next 5 turns or so. That’s about as far in advance that I can plan.

Rob Gjessing -> (3/5/2003 6:13:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 Quote; What is needed in the game, is an information screen similar to those found in Uncommon Valour. It would list all the objectives and how many points they are worth on any given turn. Then I would sort the list by turn number and then I know which objectives I need to secure, or can afford to vacate, during the next 5 turns or so. That’s about as far in advance that I can plan. [/QUOTE] Yeah I like that idea.. I would find it valuable too..

Kent Pfeiffer -> (3/6/2003 10:30:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]The mention of dice is interesting. The 6 sided virtual dice is a throw back to the old board games of yore. Now that we have computer games, the dice should be 10 sided, or 20 sided or 100 sided.... And rather than 3 steps, how about units that have 20 steps... I have the view that we must take advantage of computing power to make better games.[/B][/QUOTE] This logic has resulted in one bad computer wargame after another over the years. If you want a game like that I suggest you try HPS''s Panzer Campaigns. It's exactly as you describe except units have as many as 600 steps, aka individual men. Board wargames use the the mechanisms they do for one simple reason, they work. There is nothing wrong with translating them to a computer game. When I bought TAO (six years ago!) I had the same reaction you did. I didn't like the "throw back" appearance of the 3 steps and, especially, the dice. However, I quickly realized this was the best operational scale computer wargame ever made and was close to perfect.

Duncan Maggs -> Men or Steps (3/7/2003 1:41:46 AM)
I don't see why operational wargames can't use men as a measure of unit strengths rather than a numerical combat strength. Surely it would be more lifelike to show a unit as having 300 men and not one step. The same goes for tanks in armoured units. Clearly there would be an underlying numerical basis for the computer to work out combat but that would be a step removed. This would show the relative merits of weaponry. For example a tiger battalion might only possess 12 tanks but have immense firepower. Such a portrayal might make players think in terms of the qualitative v quantative strengths of the men and machines needed to take an objective rather than "I need another 3 attack factors for a 5-1 and an artillery for a column shift." The old Spectrum games Arnhem, North Africa and Tunisia did this very well (these were UK releases -I don't know if they reached the rest of the world). The Avalon Hill computer game Stalingrad went half way there with its fatigue and disorganisation attributes. Move a unit and it got tired! Move it at night and it was exhausted by morning. Also units went AWOL and could no longer be ordered to move or take part in combat. Unit designations disappeared from the unit ID so that a player wasn't sure what he had available and what he was commanding. Some may argue that these concepts are more grand tactical or tactical than operational but Stalingrad used regiments as well as battalions and companies. Jack Radey's later boardgames such as Black Sea Black Death factored in fatigue and disorganisation but in a pen and pencil age it was too difficult or time consuming to carry out and no one wanted to be a bean counter. The computer should be the "accountant" as it never gets bored of these routine tasks and can free us silicon generals to conduct our strategy on the operational battlefield.

Mac_MatrixForum -> Re: Men or Steps (3/7/2003 4:17:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duncan Maggs [B]I don't see why operational wargames can't use men as a measure of unit strengths rather than a numerical combat strength. Surely it would be more lifelike to show a unit as having 300 men and not one step. The same goes for tanks in armoured units. Clearly there would be an underlying numerical basis for the computer to work out combat but that would be a step removed. [/B][/QUOTE] Since you cannot accurately calculate the combat results at the level of single men/vehicles those numbers would be insignificant. In fact they could very easily detract from the experience, if the player reads too much into them and notices how false or unbelievable they are. Better abstract away something that is impossible to model accurately enough.

BrubakerII -> (3/7/2003 4:30:57 AM)
Some very good points for both arguements made here. I think Uncommon Valour is an example of the latter type of game where moves are made operationally/strategically but have minute detail on what losses are taken etc. Whether this makes for a good experience playing the game or not is personal I guess. I always liked Grigsby's Russian game (East Front?) whioch was simlar: units where corps sized but losses were down to individual mean, tanks, planes etc. The point is though I don't think it made any difference to the game as such, it would have played the same if the men were called sims or walnuts or whatever, so it is an immersion thing only. Duncan I hear what you are saying. The thing is, I think what makes the TAO series so good is its 'beer and pretzels' type approach. You don't have to get bogged down in the minutia of the game but can play it at a really removed level if you so wish. I too thought the game overly simple (TAO2) when I first played it, but soon cam to discover that that very simplicity is what made the game so much fun to play. Brubaker

Fred98 -> (3/7/2003 12:08:07 PM)
Yes, my view is thta TAO2 and the upcoming KP are great games. The only area for improvement would be in the information screens and to have the odd new map availabkle from time to time. My comments were of a general nature, continuing with my ongoing theme: "Using Computer Power to Make Better Wargames" Close Combat, UV and TAO2 are already great examples of this.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375