Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Historical scenarios.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> RE: Historical scenarios. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/1/2007 6:37:50 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi. I have just posted my first attempt at a historical scenario (War in the East 2) at the AT scenario bank; Divisional level, 7 days per turn, with a 95% historical setup (including the command structure for both sides, but excluding the Korps level as it added too many layers). I've even used all the historical German unit names and included the names of key commanders. IT NOW NEEDS THE COMMUNITY TO HELP WITH EDITS AND IMPROVEMENTS - ESPECIALLY THE EVENTS ENGINE, AS I'M USELESS AT THAT.

Of course, the AI will create new units with non-historical names over time, but that's only a minor annoyance. I've played it through to Sept 1941 as both sides against the AI and the front line was almost exactly as it was historically.


Ok I volunteer , what do you need ?

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 31
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 12:09:33 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi. I have just posted my first attempt at a historical scenario (War in the East 2) at the AT scenario bank; Divisional level, 7 days per turn, with a 95% historical setup (including the command structure for both sides, but excluding the Korps level as it added too many layers). I've even used all the historical German unit names and included the names of key commanders. IT NOW NEEDS THE COMMUNITY TO HELP WITH EDITS AND IMPROVEMENTS - ESPECIALLY THE EVENTS ENGINE, AS I'M USELESS AT THAT.

Of course, the AI will create new units with non-historical names over time, but that's only a minor annoyance. I've played it through to Sept 1941 as both sides against the AI and the front line was almost exactly as it was historically.


Putting together a divisional level scenario that covers the entire Russian front for the entire war is quite an ambitious way to jump into the editor. My hat's off to you. I had a quick look and had some comments and thoughts:

- If you more than double the number of units and triple the number of turns in a year. You may consider either (a) making the map larger or (b) making the units move less per turn. With the current map, it is 24 hexes from jump off to Moscow, the Germans can set a leisurely pace of about 1 hex per turn and get there before the winter. An easy way to scale would be to add x and y hexes to the map and then re-draw. You would have to get a good historic source.

- I would look at the combination of the number of HQ's, HQ range, and the size of the map. With current settings, HQ's give full support to units 5 hexes away and then things taper off from there. The SU is a bit of a funnel. Once you get past the marshes, you can get really good coverage with 6 HQ. Any more than this and you are wasting pp that could be used for research. A couple of potential solutions would be to: (1) make a bigger map; (2) reduce the HQ range; (3) reduce to HQ cost so they cannot be effectively harvested.

- I think the starting position greatly favors the Germans. Both sides were increased, though though most of the Soviet increase is likely to be lost quickly. A significant force is SW of AG South and should always be cut off on the first turn by a decent German player. By turn 3, I think the Germans will be in much stronger relative shape that the previous version.

- Minor point - you over mechanize the motor divisions. They have 5 trucks and 5 half tracks. A smart player will use this excess transport to also mechanize the regular troops.

- If you make significant changes to the scenario, production and how it changes over time, becomes important. I did not dig into this. However, your initial oob with determine if the first 6 months of the war runs well. Your production levels will determine how well the rest of the war runs. Production is tricky because you have to set the amount and determine the location. I also noticed you added a lot of low value production centers. You may want this but it does add more complexity to the player (instead of 4 sheets of a lot of towns, you might add larger production centers on the map edge).


In the end, if you want to do a divisional level scenario, I would:

- Start with a new map
- Start with a clean set of events
- Develop your production plan for each side
- Populate your oob.

Happy to help. Send me a note if interested.

< Message edited by tweber -- 12/2/2007 5:53:39 AM >

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 32
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 12:39:19 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi. I have just posted my first attempt at a historical scenario (War in the East 2) at the AT scenario bank; Divisional level, 7 days per turn, with a 95% historical setup (including the command structure for both sides, but excluding the Korps level as it added too many layers). I've even used all the historical German unit names and included the names of key commanders. IT NOW NEEDS THE COMMUNITY TO HELP WITH EDITS AND IMPROVEMENTS - ESPECIALLY THE EVENTS ENGINE, AS I'M USELESS AT THAT.

Of course, the AI will create new units with non-historical names over time, but that's only a minor annoyance. I've played it through to Sept 1941 as both sides against the AI and the front line was almost exactly as it was historically.



-Do you consider the idea of reworking the SF types and change their statistics in order to build realistic equipment (T-34´s, Me-109´s and so on)?

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 33
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 11:55:36 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		@redmarkus,

see my remarks in other thread about doing a divisional level more historical scenario.

i dont want to bash your enthousiasm but having units stacked 3 deep on the whole frontline is not something that is very usefull in a gameplay sense.

also keeping up with giving each division mgs, mortars, at-guns, inf-guns, smg, rifle , artillery, etc.. is just to much. you'll have to do some abstraction to make this work.

sorry for the criticism, but just my 2 cents.

kind regards,
vic


(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 34
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 1:15:36 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		Hi - great. There's a new thread in the Scenarios forum where we can discuss. However, if you download the scenario (Version 2) and try it as the Soviets first, that's a start!

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 35
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 1:21:37 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		Hmmm... maybe i was too ambitious but I wanted a scenario that gives the satisfaction of an FiTE or Europa game. Anyway, I've enjoyed testing it and I hope someone else will be inspired to make a proper version of this. I may not have all the skills/time needed to do this 100% right.

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 36
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 11:44:58 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		REd that's a great ambition...but I dont' think AT in its current format will let you do it....it's just too abstracted.

AT with a bit more "solidity" would be good tho - eg the suggestion I and others have made to defein units and then have them "locked" would be a minimum change IMO.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 37
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/2/2007 11:49:59 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		I beg to differ SMK, I don't see why AT won"t be able to depict properly East Front. "Locked" units would  help recreate historical setups- fine, they are easily doable if you use an Action card driven production system instead of the standard one.
You can also add "resources", manpower and whatever you wish to enhance the production model if you use cards. Sure this would need many event/card scripts and AI scripts to have the AI play the cards, but it's doable right now.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 38
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 12:38:09 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		One thing about this game for the ultra grognard is the infinite flexibility of unit "organisations" - yuo can freely transfer subunits between "units" at almsot any time (there are limimts on capacity) - eg yuo ight start the game with each panzer division consisting of 2 medium tanks, 1 infantry, etc., but there's nothign stopping you from putting 20 flak into it, or even aircraft or ships (but it would have to be at an airfield or port...)

the concenpt of "historical OOB's" is hterefore..um...highly flexible!! :)  A game designer needs to make some fundamental decisions about what scale is going to apply to his game, and then stick to it.  But, as above, that only governs starting positions and strengths....after that it's afree-for-all.

that said it does still give a good game - I'm playing Russia '42 at the moment, and it's a good game..not great, but good.  I've found random scenarios quiet good for forcing you to play various options you might not bother with otherwise, but they pale after a while.

Now if they could just have an option for making "fixed" unit organisations that can't be changed it would take a great leap towards grogly-ness!

(in reply to Der Oberst)
Post #: 39
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 11:30:41 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Mhh, i think the fixed unit organisations sounds like a nice idea.
It would allow players only to fill up these units up to their original strength.

And you could limit the player on creating new units.

BUT: What will happen when a initial unit is destroyed completely ?

Player must have a chance then to rebuild that unit in the original strength.
New units could appear at historical times.

For the real Grognards this may be great, but i like to be flexible.
But it´s worth to think about such a feature, Vic :)

At least a option in the editor that doesn´t allow to exceed the initial strength of a unit.
No strength is wrong, i mean the initial composition of the unit.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 40
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 6:15:51 PM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

Mhh, i think the fixed unit organisations sounds like a nice idea.
It would allow players only to fill up these units up to their original strength.

And you could limit the player on creating new units.

BUT: What will happen when a initial unit is destroyed completely ?

Player must have a chance then to rebuild that unit in the original strength.
New units could appear at historical times.

For the real Grognards this may be great, but i like to be flexible.
But it´s worth to think about such a feature, Vic :)

At least a option in the editor that doesn´t allow to exceed the initial strength of a unit.
No strength is wrong, i mean the initial composition of the unit.



Actually, I've been working on doing somethinglike this in scenario I'm working on (Oper. Avalanche). However, I think it will work without having a feature to freeze the unit comp. I think it's possible to to manage this by using replacements, provided by Events that check total force, and not allowing build. In fact I think you could even still use the producction system, but monitor and reduce it if totl prod got too high.

It would not prohibit player from building uber-units, but it would constrain how he was able to (he'd have to reduce composition of other units). In any case, I'm working on a Bn level scenario where I'm trying some things like this.

I thought I would have it ready yestrrday or today, but ran into another problem, so it's taking a little while longer.

it is my first scenario, so I've kept it fairly small.

Rick

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 41
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 6:51:37 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		The really simple way to lock unit compositions is in their construction.  Instead of having rifle, AT gun, tank, and truck units, make units that are a blend of each.  It could be a rifle-AT_gun-light_tank unit or simply a '1941 German Infantry Battalion'.  A counter could now have a couple of infantry battalions and a couple of other units that are different blends. 

(in reply to rickier65)
Post #: 42
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 7:43:16 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		i agree with tom (tweber). that will let you go with the grain of the engine instead of against it.

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 43
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 8:05:50 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Nah Tom, i´m not sure i like this. How should i pick the guns out of these "mischmasch" subunittypes with divebombers ?
When i understood you right you want to create fully new sft´s like a "tank batallion"
But i could not longer pic single tanks out of these formations, or ? Since they are more a virtual thing then.
Let´s say i have a SFT "German infantry battalion" with (virtual) mix of infantry, MG, mortar, AT gun and infantry gun (+flak...)
how this will appear on the battlescreen? As one icon. Or better said one icon per battalion.
Planes hitting special subformations would become useless here. They would always hit the whole unit.
Imho this would screw the combat system of the actual unit set completely (and it´s balance)
Or did i misunderstood you here ? 

_____________________________


(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 44
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 8:57:17 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline 		Seille if you're worried about having a mishmash in one SFT, just make them companies which are usually more of a single type of equipment.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 45
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 9:21:14 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		But there are still no tanks i can hit. Or no AT guns or Infantry guns.
All the weak points and the strength of the actual subunits would be lost then.

@jjdenver
Ok, then i have "5x German Infantry Battalion 1941" in that subunit.
Still a mix of different original SFT´s which are not longer attackable in the old way.
No longer individuals the combat engine is based on.

@Vic

Since this was your idea maybe you can tell me how the fight will be done here.
How the "divebomber is good against heavy equipment like trucks, tanks and guns" can work here ?
They would be not longer available as target, just the 10x German Infantry Battalion 1941.....
Mhh, i want to destroy tanks/guns and so on and i want to see this in the statistics

(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 46
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 9:36:36 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		This is what I like the most about the game.  If you feel like the units should be mashed together, you can do that (e.g., the Katyusha and Flak 88 in the new World at War scenario).  If you don't, you do not have to do it either.  Everyone will have there own preferences. 

To your specific question, a tactical wing (e.g., a mash of fighers and divebombers) might be better against the mash called 'tank, mechanized, or gun battalion' than against the mashed up 'basic infantry battalion'.  The higher losses of the first could be due to better targeting and would be reflected in the statistics.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 47
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 9:57:56 PM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline 		Seille,

If you go with companies then you have generally a specific unit type in the company.

For example a panzer company might have 10 panzers in it so it's not a mishmash, it's a panzer SFT. An infantry company has infantry so it's an infantry SFT. An artillery company has guns so it's an artillery SFT. An AA company has flak guns so it's an AA SFT. At the battalion level you have more of a mishmash of units - true - but if you go company and base your production and unit construction on that you'll have a lot of SFT's per formation but at least the SFT's will be represented as a piece of specific equipment as you desire.

Will this work?

JJ

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 48
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 10:07:31 PM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

This is what I like the most about the game.  If you feel like the units should be mashed together, you can do that (e.g., the Katyusha and Flak 88 in the new World at War scenario).  If you don't, you do not have to do it either.  Everyone will have there own preferences. 

To your specific question, a tactical wing (e.g., a mash of fighers and divebombers) might be better against the mash called 'tank, mechanized, or gun battalion' than against the mashed up 'basic infantry battalion'.  The higher losses of the first could be due to better targeting and would be reflected in the statistics.


Yes, its really quite an accomplishment - granted I'm pretty much a novice, but the more I tinker with the editor, them more I like this game.

Rick

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 49
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 10:08:26 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Ok. But where is then the difference to the actual system ?
It would be the same except you call the subformations then company(´s).

We´ll see what the scenario designers do and how they solve these problems.
At least problems in my eyes...
Maybe they´ll find a workaround or rewrite the whole unit set.


(in reply to jjdenver)
Post #: 50
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 10:17:53 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		I'm not planning on re-writing the current unit set.  It is clean, balanced, and good for the scale that is often used.  So this is all theoretical until someone puts some thing out.  In any case, I do not think that the system is changed.  You could take just about any unit (let's say a truck) and add some capability (lets say a high defense ability against tanks) and the system will treat that unit like a different unit (same as a AT gun).  The real challenge with making units is making them in a way that no one unit is dominant.  If you add capability to a unit, you should generally also add cost or some other vulnerability.  Otherwise, smart players will buy that unit exclusively.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 51
RE: Historical scenarios. - 12/3/2007 10:37:01 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		@Tom

I 100% understood what you have in mind.
It would need a complete rework of the current ww2 unit set since introducing such companies/battalions/regiments/divisions or squadrons/groups  with new production costs would cause a imbalance. Means you have to make the full unit set this way.

And then you would have to do all the work to balance that new unit set again. All the finetuning. I can still remember very good ...
The problem that i could never ever pick up single tanks would be still there

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> RE: Historical scenarios. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.844