Two questions

[Berkut]

This is not a board wargame. It lacks many of the things that make a board wargame appealing to me.

It is a computer wargame. As such, I expect it to have many of the things that make computer wargames appealing to me that board wargames lack.

One of those things is a variety of different scenarios playable under the same basic system. It is not the only thing, by any means, but is it one of the things.

Barring that, it should have an easy enough to use scenario editor that users canc reate their own scnearios. Battlefront lacked this - I hope this will be addressed here.

lastly, there are a LOT of scenarios out there for this "system" that this game claims to be the successor to - I fear that once again SSG is fragmenting their player base in a niche market.  Kharkov will replace BF: Market Garden, but not really since it won't be able to play the scenarios from that game, requiring you to keep them both installed.

If in fact Kharkov includes significant improvements over its predecessor (and if it does not, why are we buying it?), then why would I wish to load up the older, less featured game to play scenarios in?

SSG seems to be shoosing the worst of all possible worlds - a game system that lacks backward compatibility, lacks patching of previous games to current standards, AND makes it very hard for even the user community to update those scenarios.

At a minimum, SSG needs to make some capability to import the BF scenarios and update them in some fashion.

And really - no scaling resolutions? Didn't we learn that lesson already???

[hank]

In regards to subsequent scenario's, there's one big gorilla in the room.  SSG has already done much research for several excellent battles.  Look back at all the scenario's DB and BF has modelled.  TAO, Korsun, Across the Dnepr, Normandy, Gazala, etc etc etc ... much of the time consuming work in building the scenarios is map creation and OOB's.

I would suggest SSG capture all that past work, and in the case of BF battles - maps, and concentrate on compiling an add-on battle pack and possible add another scenario to the initial release of K:DotD. I realise the battle would have to be rebuilt with the new system but a lot of work goes into simulating history via good maps and OOBs.

I suppose I'm more concerned with helping ... by making recommendations, etc. to possibly get a better wargame.  I can also understand some of the discontent.  I passed on BiI because of discontent.  It happens.

just another 2 cents

[Alan Sharif]

I would 'like' more scenarios but will still be buying this title the days it is available and am sure it will be a 1st class game.

[tevans6220]

Sorry Erik but one scenario and ten variants doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans. The HPS version of Kharkov is of the same or smaller scale, offers more scenarios, comes with a larger map and is just as well researched. The only strike against HPS is that their AI leaves a lot to be desired but slowly and surely they're working on it. Not saying that I won't purchase. Just wanted to point out that the "well researched" selling point is a pretty weak one.

[Howard7x]

I think the point your all missing here is that the game engine is difficult to work with. Thats the reason for the lack of scenarios in all of the SSG games. It takes time and effort to put them together, but the maps and OOB along with the support from SSG and modders make this game a must buy for me. BIN only had 1 scenario + a bonus one moved over from KP (TAO5), yet i dont remember people complaining and moaning like you all are here. The AO and Mystery additions sound like something a hex based wargame has been needing for a long time. So long as the editor works as well as it did in BII, there will be alot of user made scenarios made for this game. BF was 2 steps forward, 1 step back for me. I think this release will iron out the problems encountered with the BF engine/editor.
 
SSG clearly dont have the money to change the core game engine and UI. If you look at most of the developers here on matrix games, they get a base engine set up and then end up modding and evolving the same engine into a different release. Thats just the way it works. Were not talking about Activision and Rockstar games who have millions to spend, like it or not, the devs have to work with what they have got.
 
Comparing it to HPS might not be the best way to go seeing as for most wargamers this side of the millennium, the only thing HPS has going for it IS the number of scenarios. I dont doubt the amount of depth and research put into each of their releases, the problem is the game engine just sucks. I enjoyed it back in 1995.

[Toby42]

Color me "Stupid" Howard, but I think that BIN had/has more than one scenario. Not counting the Bulge one???

[HercMighty]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

...yet i dont remember people complaining and moaning like you all are here.

This is not true and a slightly different scenario. Battlefront was supposed to be the new engine and the future. Supposebly with the editor and future games were going to be based on it so the future would be brighter. There would be added scenarios both user made and possibly SSG made. We'll we've all heard about the editor problems and the lack of scenarios that resulted.

Well look what happened. People complained about lack of scenarios and lack of developer to customer interaction. SSG says don't worry we got something great planned. We'll I am sorry no they don't. For the price they will charge, no they don't.

This is a computer game which if done right is supposed to take all the problems of a board game out. Easier to play, more scenarios, replayability. So they drummed it down to make it easier to play, but then in my opinion failed on everything else. For a new game price the graphics needed to be addressed and maybe they should have really looked at the editor to make it easier to make scenarios. I don't make them, I don't have the time or the desire too. I will pay to play them but to do that in SSG's world is way to hard on the budget for what you get. As far as I am concerned what they are releasing should be an addon on to Battlefront and should be proced accordinaly.

Maybe if they called this Battlefront II and said it was shipping with one battle modeled with the release of future battles as add on prices this would work. But if we keep going as they are the next one will cost $50.00 too and we'll only get bug fixes to this title.

[Frank.Costanzo]

This game is great news! I have studied this battle, and this game will move to the top of my list of future purchases. I will also weigh in on the talk about number of scenarios. I have bought many computer games in the past, and I would much rather buy a game with one very well researched scenario with variants, then multiple lower quality scenarios. I have always thought that some computer wargames try to do too much, and cover too many battles. Focusing on one battle gives the designers a better basis to setup a good AI, and historical feel.

I am assuming this is the spring of 1942 battle. My wish list would be a future addition of the 1943 winter battles around Kharkov.

[tucson3217]

I have enjoyed all the SSG games and will buy this one-I do wish that more scenarios could be made, a professional quality scenario with perhaps new units or unit art would be fantastic--and I would be willing to pay quite a bit to have these.  I think if you develop one flexible system that you could make a bit of money and have many happy customers buy applying updates to the engine, art and scenarios.  I think you might be surprised how much people might pay for these types of things-and for whatever reason we customers tend to be more accepting of small but requested improvements to an existing engine  (even if we pay for it) than we seem to be of a new game design.

I think the reason for this is because it makes the customer feel that they are being listened to.  Even if their requested fix was not applied right away, the fact that the game was being worked on and designed and tweaked and improved makes the customer excited and feel appreciated.  I, for one, think the AO improvement itself looks quite genius, and I am very excited by the strategic possibilities it may open up, and how it might improve the sense of purpose during each move- and even total game immersion.

Ok, I have a couple of questions about the new game:

1) I liked the artillery system in battlefront better than in the previous games.  however, I did not like the fact that they artillery ended up being a indirect fire anti-tank weapon.  I think it may not have been how the system was intended to be used, and am pretty certain that is not how it was ever used in war.  I am wondering if this has been addressed in some manner in this new engine?  Or is the artillery back to the way it was in the older games?  I would like to see the system in battlefront with some tweaks to make artillery perform in a more historical fashion.

2) I assume the 4k hexes means the direct fire system has changed? I did try and read the blurb about the new direct fire rules, but I guess I did not quite understand how tanks, armor and AT guns and effects will be used--it seems like it may be a mesh between the older games and battlefront?  I am not sure though.  Another question about direct fire weapons-could a sce. designer make smaller hexes and add ranged direct fire to the game system?

3) I was looking at the new battlefront sce. being currently in designed on the Run5 forums.  It looks beautiful.  I was wondering if the same sort of graphic tweaks might be included as a possible variant in the new game engine?  Or make something like this downloadable?  I think an easy upgrade like this would make people quite pleased--I know I would enjoy it.  While I can tell the difference between a PZ IV and PZ III from their shawdos/outlines such as they are, the unit art in the following examples are much more fulfilling and would increase game play for me a lot.  I think the following art is ported from the 'Volcano Man' Art upgrades he makes for HPS games-so I am not certain if the exact art could be included or made available. Maybe you could ask him?  Or if that is not an option, maybe something similar might be made available?

I am looking forward to this release.  I hope others will give it a chance as well-I am guessing it will be quite good.  I also see the point of some of the complaints however; so perhaps a bit more attention to after release value added features and game play might be considered? 

I think everybody would be happy with that scenario-there are very few quality computer war game designers left (board war games OTOH seem to be making an amazing comeback both in quality of components, playability and popularity).

It would be quite tragic if a very talented and experienced designer/developer quit making games not because the games were of low quality, but because the customers and designers had a sort of falling out due to a misunderstanding of desires and intent. 

I really do not think customers and developers are that far apart-it seems we all want the same basic things, but that due to some possibly fumbled communications and maybe even some bad market choices there is a bit of mistrust built up. 

I honestly don't think there is any huge gap created though-I think SSG has earned some more patience on our part based on a long track record of quality games. I think some of their new ideas sound very promising-real and innovative change is not coming from many places in computer war gaming, and SSG  does attempt to add significant and creative game designs.  Designs that seem to take advantage of what computers offer, not just simple board game ports.  For instance, the AO design?  That would be hard to try and design in a board game (I realize MMP-and maybe others as well- has a sort of similar concept in their TCS games with the written orders, but some consider it too awkward.  I happen to like it, but anyway...)  

Having said all that, I do think the designers owe it to the customers to add more value to their future releases (such as they have done in the past). Perhaps an engine that is more flexible and open to engine upgrades and mods? Or maybe mods and tweaks for graphics or backwards compatibility etc.  W/O that, at least some quality scenarios, content and additions should be given to each release before moving on to the next design.

[Howard7x]

No, BIN had 1 map, just like the one here, and several scenarios based on that 1 map, which is just the same as the 10 viarants they are putting in here. Essentially, the BIN scenarios were just individual parts of the overlord 32 turn campaign. The user based scenarios evolved over the next few YEARS. I understand people moaning about lack of scenarios compared with other games but with SSG's releases, thats always been the case so why start complaining now. Quality over quantity is the key and i still stand by that now seeing as im still playing BII, which has quite a few scenarios, yet still cant compare to TOAW3 or HPS sims list of shipped scenarios, surely thats telling you something!!

The big question is, for me, will the scenario editor be back to how it was or better than BII. Seeing as that has the most custom scenarios. I would be equally dissapointed if its a difficult as battlefront's editor. Dont jundge until weve found out more details.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: tucson3217

I have enjoyed all the SSG games and will buy this one-I do wish that more scenarios could be made, a professional quality scenario with perhaps new units or unit art would be fantastic--and I would be willing to pay quite a bit to have these. I think if you develop one flexible system that you could make a bit of money and have many happy customers buy applying updates to the engine, art and scenarios. I think you might be surprised how much people might pay for these types of things-and for whatever reason we customers tend to be more accepting of small but requested improvements to an existing engine (even if we pay for it) than we seem to be of a new game design.

I think the reason for this is because it makes the customer feel that they are being listened to. Even if their requested fix was not applied right away, the fact that the game was being worked on and designed and tweaked and improved makes the customer excited and feel appreciated. I, for one, think the AO improvement itself looks quite genius, and I am very excited by the strategic possibilities it may open up, and how it might improve the sense of purpose during each move- and even total game immersion.

Ok, I have a couple of questions about the new game:

1) I liked the artillery system in battlefront better than in the previous games. however, I did not like the fact that they artillery ended up being a indirect fire anti-tank weapon. I think it may not have been how the system was intended to be used, and am pretty certain that is not how it was ever used in war. I am wondering if this has been addressed in some manner in this new engine? Or is the artillery back to the way it was in the older games? I would like to see the system in battlefront with some tweaks to make artillery perform in a more historical fashion.

2) I assume the 4k hexes means the direct fire system has changed? I did try and read the blurb about the new direct fire rules, but I guess I did not quite understand how tanks, armor and AT guns and effects will be used--it seems like it may be a mesh between the older games and battlefront? I am not sure though. Another question about direct fire weapons-could a sce. designer make smaller hexes and add ranged direct fire to the game system?

3) I was looking at the new battlefront sce. being currently in designed on the Run5 forums. It looks beautiful. I was wondering if the same sort of graphic tweaks might be included as a possible variant in the new game engine? Or make something like this downloadable? I think an easy upgrade like this would make people quite pleased--I know I would enjoy it. While I can tell the difference between a PZ IV and PZ III from their shawdos/outlines such as they are, the unit art in the following examples are much more fulfilling and would increase game play for me a lot. I think the following art is ported from the 'Volcano Man' Art upgrades he makes for HPS games-so I am not certain if the exact art could be included or made available. Maybe you could ask him? Or if that is not an option, maybe something similar might be made available?

I am looking forward to this release. I hope others will give it a chance as well-I am guessing it will be quite good. I also see the point of some of the complaints however; so perhaps a bit more attention to after release value added features and game play might be considered?

I think everybody would be happy with that scenario-there are very few quality computer war game designers left (board war games OTOH seem to be making an amazing comeback both in quality of components, playability and popularity).

It would be quite tragic if a very talented and experienced designer/developer quit making games not because the games were of low quality, but because the customers and designers had a sort of falling out due to a misunderstanding of desires and intent.

I really do not think customers and developers are that far apart-it seems we all want the same basic things, but that due to some possibly fumbled communications and maybe even some bad market choices there is a bit of mistrust built up.

I honestly don't think there is any huge gap created though-I think SSG has earned some more patience on our part based on a long track record of quality games. I think some of their new ideas sound very promising-real and innovative change is not coming from many places in computer war gaming, and SSG does attempt to add significant and creative game designs. Designs that seem to take advantage of what computers offer, not just simple board game ports. For instance, the AO design? That would be hard to try and design in a board game (I realize MMP-and maybe others as well- has a sort of similar concept in their TCS games with the written orders, but some consider it too awkward. I happen to like it, but anyway...)

Having said all that, I do think the designers owe it to the customers to add more value to their future releases (such as they have done in the past). Perhaps an engine that is more flexible and open to engine upgrades and mods? Or maybe mods and tweaks for graphics or backwards compatibility etc. W/O that, at least some quality scenarios, content and additions should be given to each release before moving on to the next design.

Thanks for the considered comments. As I've said elsewhere, this design will be used for our next game as well, so we hope that this will give people some confidence in the stability of the system and our desire to support it.

The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Artillery is a sort of anti-everything system. Used in the attack it causes step losses and induces retreats. It is not specifically used in the defence except that artillery units tend to have good Direct Defence chances, so if assaulted they can cause extra step losses to the attacker (as they could in Battlefront). I don't really understand the anti-armour part of the question since artillery only ever targets a hex rather than specific units.

2. The Direct Attack system has changed from Battlefront. In BF you had to chose between using armour units from 1 hex away to fire on eligible targets, and forgo their use in Close Combat, or just chuck them into the Close Combat and forget about the Direct Fire.

The system is now caused Direct Attack because armoured units can cause extra casualties to eligible units (basically anybody not entrenched) in the defending stack as part of a Close Combat. Since you get one dice roll per hex side attacked from, it pays to have your tanks attack from as many directions as possible.

The interaction between Tank Attack, and Tank or Anti-Tank defence factors is a separate system and remains as it was in BF and operates just to modify the dice roll on the CRT. Its essence is to reward you if you have better quality tanks than the defender's anti tank defences and penalise you if it is worse.

The old style Direct Fire can't be resurrected but despite the long explanation, the new system is in fact simpler and easier to use.

3. The graphics in the games are just bitmaps, it doesn't take an engine tweak to change them, just different artwork. I'll have a look at the examples you are talking about.

I would hope that we have earned some of the patience that you talk about, given our long history. For instance, we did a great deal of work and added the Mystery Variants to Carriers at War, which greatly increased playability, even though it probably wouldn't have resulted in a single extra sale.

If I could make one philosophical comment applicable to this whole discussion it would be this: everything we want to do takes time, a long time, and there's only a few of us to do the work. With Kharkov, I'm absolutely convinced that we have got the basics totally right. It's a very exciting game, and the Mystery Variants add great replayability, especially to PBEM games. It will be great value for money and will only get better.

Gregor

[tucson3217]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG



Thanks for the considered comments. As I've said elsewhere, this design will be used for our next game as well, so we hope that this will give people some confidence in the stability of the system and our desire to support it.

The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Artillery is a sort of anti-everything system. Used in the attack it causes step losses and induces retreats. It is not specifically used in the defence except that artillery units tend to have good Direct Defence chances, so if assaulted they can cause extra step losses to the attacker (as they could in Battlefront). I don't really understand the anti-armour part of the question since artillery only ever targets a hex rather than specific units.

2. The Direct Attack system has changed from Battlefront. In BF you had to chose between using armour units from 1 hex away to fire on eligible targets, and forgo their use in Close Combat, or just chuck them into the Close Combat and forget about the Direct Fire.

The system is now caused Direct Attack because armoured units can cause extra casualties to eligible units (basically anybody not entrenched) in the defending stack as part of a Close Combat. Since you get one dice roll per hex side attacked from, it pays to have your tanks attack from as many directions as possible.

The interaction between Tank Attack, and Tank or Anti-Tank defence factors is a separate system and remains as it was in BF and operates just to modify the dice roll on the CRT. Its essence is to reward you if you have better quality tanks than the defender's anti tank defences and penalise you if it is worse.

The old style Direct Fire can't be resurrected but despite the long explanation, the new system is in fact simpler and easier to use.

3. The graphics in the games are just bitmaps, it doesn't take an engine tweak to change them, just different artwork. I'll have a look at the examples you are talking about.

I would hope that we have earned some of the patience that you talk about, given our long history. For instance, we did a great deal of work and added the Mystery Variants to Carriers at War, which greatly increased playability, even though it probably wouldn't have resulted in a single extra sale.

If I could make one philosophical comment applicable to this whole discussion it would be this: everything we want to do takes time, a long time, and there's only a few of us to do the work. With Kharkov, I'm absolutely convinced that we have got the basics totally right. It's a very exciting game, and the Mystery Variants add great replayability, especially to PBEM games. It will be great value for money and will only get better.

Gregor

Thanks for your response. I realize now that I mentioned two examples and then forgot to supply the links. doh. Perhaps you have found what I was talking about, but just to make it more clear to anybody else who might be reading, here are the examples:

http://signsafrica.co.za/images/Prok/prok_german.jpg

http://signsafrica.co.za/images/Prok/prok_russian.jpg

I guess it sounds like all that would need to be done in this case then is to rename whatever image in the editor? will the image be shrunk to its proper size? In any case, this sounds like it is already somewhat (easily?) doable.

As far as the artillery I was speaking about in BF, my point was just more of how I ended up using it I guess- sort of felt it was a little wrong to be using it in such a manner.

I (and I have heard others comment on this too) would tend to first look for un-entrenched armor units to attack with artillery in BF and only if there were none in range would I go then go after softer targets. If i am remembering correctly the same die roll could eliminate a step of armor just as easily as a step of infantry. Maybe giving the armor a special bonus to endure artillery strikes? It just felt a little funny looking for armor 15 miles away to try and pick off with indirect fire, but maybe I am wrong about this.

Anyway, I am looking forward to this release-when I compare how much entertainment per hour I get from even one well designed scenario or campaign it is still a much better value than most any other type of entertainment I pursue. Even w/ battlefront, I must have played it for more than 150 hours by now, and that is including only finishing half of the Africa and half of the market garden scenarios thus far. I much prefer less but higher quality scenarios with extra features than simply more slightly variant scenarios such as one might find in HPS panzer campaigns. For the most part, despite countless scenarios in Panzer campaigns I only ever play the main campaign game. all the others are just smaller parts of the same it seems-this to me, is not really 'more scenarios', just chopped up parts of the main scenario-which is fine to me, they also provide many hours of entertainment.

[Gregor_SSG]

If you're picking of armor at 15 miles then that's bad play on someone's part (so I hope its not the AI!). Guys that far behind the lines should always be entrenched and entrenched units are much harder to damage and harder to see in the first place.

In our system, artillery becomes a real killer in two situations.

1. Attacking units have left their entrenchments, concentrated for an attack and advanced into contested ground where they can't entrench. This is the defender's chance to make them pay, and if you have been using your artillery shots prior to this to try and ping off the odd step, then the attacker will feel a lot happier.

Note that if you stack your Panzer regiments, which in Kharkov typically have 2 steps with a nice 4 step infantry regiment you will get yourself another measure of protection anyway.

2. Defending units have suffered a retreat result and are forced from their entrenchments. The attacker may well have had to pour a fair amount of artillery into the hex before the attack to increase the retreat chance, hopefully they have plenty left to exploit this situation.

Note that if the retreating units end up in a hex with a friendly entrenched unit they are much less vulnerable to artillery fire, so defending in depth will be rewarded.

What I like about our artillery system is that it causes casualties when it should and it rewards the careful and patient player who can plan ahead for his own attacks and anticipate his opponents, such that he has the right artillery units in range, dug in so they are less vulnerable to counter-battery fire, and with plenty of bullets for the job. (This isn't really a description of me, but I'm getting closer with practice).

Gregor

[Ola Berli]

Gregor,

the problem was in Battlefront in the desert. There it was possibel to quite easy killing off steps of armour or right out killing armour with artillery.
The desert you know have very little cover. Of course digging in armour would help. But I do not think that is how armour should be handled in
desert battles. Battles in desert should be armour swirling affairs.

[Duck Doc]

I have wondered about a related issue in Battlefront. In the Gazala battles, for example, the two-step tank companies or squadrons were admixed with the four-step infantry regiments & there was no way to combine the armor into bigger units with more steps. Now, maybe this mix was chosen to try to simulate the historical combat results. However I really didn't like losing so many armored units so easy regardless of what killed them simply because they had only two steps. It was really off-putting for me.

It was an invitation to disaster to leave a single squadron or company on its own because combat usually resulted in the loss of the unit. I made it a habit of keeping the companies stacked together as whole battalions. It makes more sense to my limitied understanding of the historical situation to have the armored units represented as battalions & not anything smaller especially when the infantry units were regimental size.

I hope Kharkov doesn't replicate this situation. From what I can tell Kharkov will be on a regimental scale with independent battalions & this won't be an issue.

[Noakesy]

ORIGINAL: Dale H
It was an invitation to disaster to leave a single squadron or company on its own because combat usually resulted in the loss of the unit. I made it a habit of keeping the companies stacked together as whole battalions. It makes more sense to my limitied understanding of the historical situation to have the armored units represented as battalions & not anything smaller especially when the infantry units were regimental size.

Agreed, this is one of the things that wound me up about BF, all those 2 step armour units that were easily wiped out (2 arty strikes, 1 air strike, 2 direct fire attempts - not unreasonable for them all to be succesful with decent units and you've taken down 5 steps).