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: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/10/2012 6:54:40 PM   
nate25


Posts: 1191
Joined: 9/20/2011
From: Fishers Indiana
Status: offline 		+1 on gwgardner's and JLPOWELL's points.

_____________________________

I have a subtle and cunning plan.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 31
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/10/2012 7:22:16 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

I can't stress divisional level units enough, IMO. Another corps level WW1 game would be a NO GO for me.

Also, NATO symbology, not 3D type units. Make it look like a proper serious wargame, not something that looks like it could have been a console game.

Just one man's 2 cents worth.

Warspite1

I'd echo nate's comments. Divisional level would be great. NATO symbols are a must too. Tiller's games give you the option so presumably it is easy to provide options if people do not like these symbols; but for me they are a must. Other must have's? The naval war must be represented with individual counters. If World In Flames can do it then I'm sure it can be done here.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to nate25)
Post #: 32
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/10/2012 9:41:41 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.


That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 33
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/10/2012 10:20:10 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.


That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

Why do you think stacking is so cool?

_____________________________


(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 34
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/11/2012 12:34:28 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		The front in the West at times had a very high density of troops. Much more so than can be represented by the current ToF style 1 corps per hex.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 35
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/11/2012 9:27:02 AM   
welk

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 9/17/2006
From: France
Status: offline 		A alternate way for a WW1 game could be that : no stacking, but choice when attacking :

1-Normal attack (the unit attacks with his own strengh)
2-Massive rupture attack : strengh of attack is strengh of attacker unit + % of strengh of neighbour units (losses apply to attacker unit and neighbour, as % of participation)

By "neighbour units", I mean that : all units that are neighbour of attacker, even if they are not in direct contact with attacked unit. This system could allow to simulate the massive rupture attacks in WW1 and the use of "rear reserves" during these attacks.


The strengh of defenseur would be that : strengh of attacked unit + % of strengh of neighbour units (but in this case, only units that are also in contact with attacker unit)

concerned % neighbour units for attacker strengh would be affected by x 1
concerned % neighbour units for defenser strengh would be affected by x 0.5

The difference between these massive rupture attack and the "normal attacks" would be a special cost in PP (Arty preparation, logistic, etc) and the risk of very very heavy losses for the attacker. The gain of such attacks would be the possible result = heavy dammage for ennemy attacked unit and (perhaps) retreat = rupture of front

This system, without needing a stacking system, would simulate 2 important things in WW1 : density of troops and massive rupture attacks during great offensives. It could be implemented, I think, without heavy difficulties in the actual ToF engine.


Edit : This system may seem curious, but some aspects of it it were used by the old Third Reich PC for the "exploitation attacks" phase, and it worked fine

< Message edited by welk -- 4/11/2012 11:09:35 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 36
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/11/2012 12:56:40 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader


quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I can't see the Western Front being represented properly without stacking.


That's my main problem with this game; no stacking.
In my book that's a definite no-no, it very much restrains your options, it limits your gameplay.

Why do you think stacking is so cool?


Not necessarily "cool", let me put it this way; I've played my share of wargames where you can't stack units, from the original "Panzer General", its sequels and its latest reincarnation "Panzer Corps" and the "Strategic Command" series, and so on. But once you get used to the option of stacking your units I find (and that's my opinion ofcourse) hard to go back. Doesn't make these games worse, the SC series by Battlefront, are great games. No doubt about that. But to my mind stacking feels more "natural". WitE, TOAW, ATG all allow stacking, and they happen to be my favorites too. I've certainly looked at ToF, and it has everything I like in a game such as production, politics, events and a broad scope of scenarios. It adds a huge "what-if" factor, sacrificing historicity at the same time which is okay with me.
So in short, stacking to me feels more fluid and natural.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 37
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/11/2012 1:04:21 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Instead of stacking you have got:
merging
splitting
upgrading
swapping

_____________________________


(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 38
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/11/2012 4:21:14 PM   
Grimnirsson


Posts: 132
Joined: 12/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

As for the name, Paths of Glory


There's a well known board wargame/consim by Ted Ricer with that name, could cause confusion, just sayin'

_____________________________


(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 39
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/12/2012 3:36:58 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline 		Regarding stacking the existing simplicity is a plus overall. Stacking ground units would make the game much more cumbersome and clutter what is a pretty clean design. (IMO the land combat is the strongest element of ToF)

Perhaps air units could stack with land units however, also air units should have no defense vrs ground units (but not be destroyed either take a hit and rebase perhaps to the force pool ground units overrunning air units strikes me as pretty unlikely as does air units defending vrs ground attack. In a PBEM game I am playing BattleVonWar is cleverly stopping invasions by placing air units on beach hexes or ports when he sees a Landing Unit which works pretty well particularly if Ftrs are used. I don't begrudge him using the clever tactic, but the game ought not allow that...

Re stacking (and related issues) I have the following suggestions for your consideration:

1 Merging and splitting likely should not freeze units for any more than at most a week.
2 Allow merging of 3 divisions into a corps
3 For WWI in particular consider Army size formations as more than one corps would deploy in a hex
4 Air and naval units don't take up space (or defend space) on ground and are displaced by ground units Perhaps with a token hit applied, perhaps to the force pool for air units for simplicity.
5 Units should take longer to build
6 Reinforcing units should be a bit more expensive or in some way restricted bringing a nearly destroyed unit back to 100% while still in contact with the enemy in a turn is perhaps too liberal. The existing supply / reinforcement rules do address this somewhat. On the other hand if a unit or units adjacent merged with it that would make at least more sense.
7 Units away from the front could perhaps heal slowly without spending points as they refit
8 Maintenance costs need to be revised armor and motorized particularly for Germany were ruinously expensive due to fuel shortages (For the US the the only problem was transporting the fuel so they would be affected differently)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Instead of stacking you have got:
merging
splitting
upgrading
swapping


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 40
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/12/2012 5:13:29 AM   
Razz1


Posts: 2560
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		The trenches would have to be a unit type.
Movement zero.

This way you can place where you want and reinforce it.
Trenches would be destroyed and damaged by artillery range 2 and 3 hexes
the a player can attack weak trenches to gain ground.

Each level could represent
1 basic depth
2 deep depth
3 with fortification
4 with machine gun nest

Or some other historical simulation

I think country moral would have to be in the game. After all the amount of men lost on the front effected moral and the will to surrender.

The most important thing would be to find the key to make it fun and not boring.

Static lines seem very boring. There was movement in the war, but there must be other things for players to be challenged and objectives to seek.

Spy's that can effect moral when key members in Politics get killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

One restriction in ToF is player-built fortifications. In a WWI game, you would have to allow for dynamic player creation of trenches and fortifications, AND you would have to do it in such a way as to recreate that difference between western and eastern fronts that you mentioned.

In other words, you would have to have the proper game mechanics that would allow a player to build trenches/fortifications, but also to recreate the conditions/tactics whereby that trench mechanism would not everywhere on the map be the best thing for a player to do.

I hope I have been somewhat clear.


(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 41
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/13/2012 1:01:02 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Great Idea.

A Side note:

I always loved reading about the battles fought in The Southern Portion of Africa between the Germans and British. They were very small, indeed. Although I feel a great diversion, and very similar to a North African Campaign.

(in reply to Razz1)
Post #: 42
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/21/2012 5:08:46 AM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		This is a very interesting concept and topic you are exploring here. What hex size is being discussed? As regards merging units is the base unit size a division or brigade? And would the merge size maximum be what corps or army level?

How would the naval war be addressed?

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 43
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/28/2012 10:55:02 PM   
VPaulus

 

Posts: 3630
Joined: 6/23/2011
From: Portugal
Status: offline 		I don't have Time of Fury, but I would buy a Time of Guns (14-18).

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 44
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 4/29/2012 10:22:55 AM   
welk

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 9/17/2006
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

I don't have Time of Fury, but I would buy a Time of Guns (14-18).



You should buy it : the game is more better than CEAW (AI is excellent) and 100% moddable for WWII, modern warfare or 14-18. I will probably do some little things in these 14-18 aeras when I will have finished my "Academy war" works (Bliz war and Modern war), with long range heavy arty, rail road arty, armored trains, siege arty, gas attacks, tanks, zeppelins, etc)

< Message edited by welk -- 4/29/2012 10:24:06 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to VPaulus)
Post #: 45
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 5/6/2012 9:55:51 AM   
fredmn

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline 		Count me as a potential future player!

(in reply to welk)
Post #: 46
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 5/6/2012 2:51:19 PM   
Magpius


Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		I think trenches should be able to move, but at a ridiculously slow rate, so they could creep across the battlefield.

_____________________________


(in reply to fredmn)
Post #: 47
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 8/25/2012 2:33:44 AM   
Tomokatu


Posts: 488
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I always loved reading about the battles fought in The Southern Portion of Africa between the Germans and British.


Yes, Von Lettow-Vorbeck's campaign was brilliantly run and needs NOT to be overlooked as it usually is. There was also the hunt for SMS Konigsberg in African river system.
Coronel-Falklands needs to be included on the naval side (even if only as a country event with effects on morale) as does the Sydney-Emden event.
Japanese escorts for Australasian troop convoys may require international fleet combinations.

_____________________________

For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction

(in reply to Magpius)
Post #: 48
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 8/27/2012 5:03:07 PM   
nukkxx5058


Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline 		I would personally vote for "Time of Nukes", a real grand strategy-geopolitical-military WW3 game with all diplomatic and intelligence options.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 49
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/11/2013 1:58:42 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Would you like Time of Guns be made this year?

_____________________________


(in reply to nukkxx5058)
Post #: 50
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/11/2013 5:17:48 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

Yes, WW 1 definitely. But not corps level, that's been done to death.

Div./Brgd. The OOBs are out there.


nate25,
The Division/Corp level of ToF would be great for the WW1 version. Doing Brigade/Division would be too ridiculous in the number of units and remember that this game system does not do stacking. That's why the division/corp level would be perfect for the ToF mapscale.
Omnius

(in reply to nate25)
Post #: 51
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/11/2013 5:20:16 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Would you like Time of Guns be made this year?


doomtrader,
Silly question since everyone here would answer let's have it done yesterday already. Obviously the sooner the better. I'm glad it appears that you are considering the project with the ToF system and scale. It will be interesting to see how you handle chemical warfare.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 52
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/11/2013 5:26:56 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

I would personally vote for "Time of Nukes", a real grand strategy-geopolitical-military WW3 game with all diplomatic and intelligence options.


nukkxx,
If you have Strategic War in Europe you'll have your dream come true as doomtrader has a beta 1945 scenario out that simulates an early dust up between early NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Right now the USA gets one nuke per turn and starts getting them on turn 2 or 3, depending on your luck finishing the research. I've convinced doomtrader to reduce the number of nukes, now he's thinking one every 4 months but I think that's still too much. I did play as the Allies against the WP AI's and I conquered the USSR on turn 26, taking a leisurely course. I only used about half the nukes I got as they just gave me too much of an advantage.

I'm trying to con doomtrader into doing a 1945 scenario for ToF, considering that the scenarios don't end until the end of 1948 I thought the NATO-WP war would be a natural. I like the 1945 scenario better than any of the other ones in SWiE.
Omnius

(in reply to nukkxx5058)
Post #: 53
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/11/2013 5:30:02 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S

I think trenches should be able to move, but at a ridiculously slow rate, so they could creep across the battlefield.


Agent S,
Moving trenches? Now that's silly. I guess you want Turtle Wars. I think that trenches could be modeled in ToF from the already existing digging in defensive bonus, probably allowing for more bonus per turn and a higher total level beyond 25%.
Omnius

(in reply to Magpius)
Post #: 54
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/12/2013 6:45:23 AM   
Magpius


Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		okay Om,
Then the ability for a unit to be able to alter the terrain hex it resides in so a trench graphic becomes apparent over time. As it does in Commander: The Great War. (which I note Doom is playing).

_____________________________


(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 55
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/12/2013 7:59:18 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S

okay Om,
Then the ability for a unit to be able to alter the terrain hex it resides in so a trench graphic becomes apparent over time. As it does in Commander: The Great War. (which I note Doom is playing).


That's the point about trenches, they should become a terrain feature not just part of the unit defence bonus, which disappears when the unit moves. When a unit moves away the trenches stay there, to be occupied by another unit of either side, which can then gain the defence bonus, or part of it. If occupied by an enemy you could say that the trench defences are oriented the wrong way and only part of the defence bonus is gained. If not occupied, they could degrade to lower levels of defence bonus over time.

Perhaps only higher levels of entrenchment should be permanent, as the first few steps of entrenchment would be hastily dug fox holes and shallow, unconnected trenches, these would be insignificant in a hex several miles across. Only when the entrenchment is at a level to represent several lines of deep continuous entrenchment, dugouts and bunkers, would they be significant enough to be reusable by either side.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/12/2013 8:27:22 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Magpius)
Post #: 56
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/12/2013 12:38:47 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline 		I of course am 100% onboard for the game. Just don't copout on:

1) a viable trench building mechanism (NOT THROUGH EVENTS!!);
2) chemical warfare;
3) player-controlled routing of convoys;
4) a commander heirarchy system as in the new Case White game you're making (as in HQ units, not leaders attached to units).

and you may want to consider:

5) creating a new unit type: artillery, which would be treated similarly leaders, in that they would add their effect in offense or defense to units within range

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 57
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/12/2013 5:06:30 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		1. The trench mechanism is already there, it just needs some adjustment and maybe a better display
2. I'm not pretty sure what could be done here. The only thing that comes to my mind at this moment is a special kind of attack.
3. I'm not pretty sure will there be a real need to use the convoys. Supply system might be changed (adjusted) a little bit
4. I'm not convinced about that. This would be cool if there would be stacking in the game. Maybe we will think about some kind of mixing those two systems.

5. I think in this level of game, there shouldn't be an artillery units. One hex is about 40 kilometers, so some games might allow to fire for two hexes, but personally I think it is pretty unrealistic.


Are there any opinions about tanks in the game? Division size tank units would be again ocmpletely unrealistic in this scale of game.

_____________________________


(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 58
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/13/2013 7:04:33 AM   
Magpius


Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Tanks could be assigned to a unit like a commander, giving the unit additional attack factors.
This could also be done for gas, (attack), or machine guns, (defensive bonus).
It depends on your unit scale I suppose.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 59
RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/13/2013 7:38:21 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Gas attack is not always an offensive weapon ;)

_____________________________


(in reply to Magpius)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

1.094