Widell -> RE: Missed opportunities... (12/8/2005 1:19:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter It does make launching an operation very difficult because the game is based on the idea of getting many different pieces of an operation together, and then when you do this the game engine decides that one (or more) of them will not show up for the party. When I look at how the game goes, and how it plays from both sides (and I do play both sides), I've got to believe that unit "experience" is a very big factor in deciding if a unit will participate or not. When everything else is pretty much "even" - base size, supply, fatigue, leadership, HQs, weather - the side with more experience seems to get more opportunities to attack than the side with less experience. Of course, this becomes a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in which the side with more experience gets more opportunities to gain even more experience even faster than the other side. Should it be this way? My gut feeling says "no", but it's hard to figure out a way to quantify this sufficiently to bring it up as a concern to the Designers. And, of course, this may well be the Designer's intent from the first place... At the risk of kidnapping this excellent AAR, does anyone have any ideas on how this developed historically in the real war? I would assume the designers looked for parameters to predict the likelyhood of a unit flying or not, or alternatively, it is just modelled using the stuff that was already mentioned in a semi-random and linear fashion? As for what would be interesting to explore for future releases (or maybe it´s for a new product?) would be to see the likelyhood of missions actually happening being subject to many factors. What I´m saying is that it should be possible to define a number of missions and bundle them into an "operation" or something like that. Then if some part of this operation fails to initiate due to bad weather, bad leadership, poor morale or whatever governs that, there is a likelyhood that the whole operation, or parts of it is cancelled as well. This may require a command and control model that is not there at the moment to simulate senior officers and staff taking decision like that. For example, a final rush by a landing TF against an enemy base might be redirected or ordered (by the higherst ranking officer in the to-be command and control structure of course) to stand off if the CAP over the landing zone is grounded due to bad weather. Complex? Of course, but we WitP addicts are not the guys to be afraid of complexity, now are we? Well, I won´t disturb the AAR more, so maybe this discussion should continue elsewhere if anyone finds it interesting? /Widell
|
|
|
|