BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul
BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Folks,
I am making the following two items available in my own Web space until Matrix posts it.
(1) BFTB one page keyboard reference
(2) BFTB scenario complexity analysis (both as an XLS for you to manipulate and a PDF for those who don't use spreadsheets)
I would also like to share some analysis of the scenarios as to what you get in BFTB:
27 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
36/343/106 duration in hours
62/655/258 total units
3/22/12 Axis objectives
3/25/13 Allied objectives
And how this compares with COTA:
32 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
24/209/102 duration in hours
29/326/146 total units
2/17/8 Axis objectives
2/29/10 Allied objectives
Just eye balling this data, I can say that the biggest growth in complexity with BFTB has been a substantial growth in the number of units commanded and a moderate increase in the number of objectives per scenario. I should note that since the engine provides for hiearchical command through AI agents, the player complexity of say doubling the number of units in a scenario tends to scale much better for the player than traditional "command every unit" or "stack based" war games.
This should also help those who want to get a sense of what you get with your BFTB purchase. Note: that each scenario may include random force deployments, variable reinforcement arrivals, non-scripted AI that is unlikely to do the same thing every time, and quite a number of parameters which you can tweak to make things harder or easier on a per scenario basis.
Enjoy!
http://home.comcast.net/~markshot/tempi ... wikRef.zip
---
NEW STUFF
I just completed a similar analysis for HTTR (raw data to be posted shortly in the HTTR forum). So, if you care to compare:
37 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
12/230/83 duration in hours
26/700/251 total units
2/18/9 Axis objectives
2/18/9 Allied objectives
I think the most interesting thing which I see here is that HTTR well exceeded COTA in terms of pushing scenarios with high unit counts. And the average number of units is comparable to BFTB. However, it is worth noting that HTTR offered a lot more smaller scenarios than BFTB. Where as on the whole BFTB has not too many small scenarios. HTTR's average pulled up by 6-8 very large scenarios.
It might be interesting to compute the "normalized unit complexity" of these three games. I would define that as total units in all scenarios divided by the total duration of all scenarios. My guess is that BFTB would score quite a bit higher in the rating. Oh, well ... an exercise for another day.
Off now to add HTTR to my comparative BFTB performance testing suite ...
MORE NEW STUFF
Here are some further statistics.
Total playable simulated scenario hours delivered with each game:
HTTR: 3085
COTA: 3273
BFTB: 2854
These numbers are so close, it would almost seem that someone planned this. But, as far as I know, that's not the case.
NOTE: This is really a minimal value, since this assuming a single play from just one side with only one set of balance adjustment options.
---
I am finally ready to compute my normalized complexity metric for each game.
Assumption: For the purpose of this analysis, all units are assumed to be present at the start of each scenario which is not the case. However, a more accurate calculation taking into consideration of arrival times is beyond my manual methods of analysis.
Methodology:
(1) Let N be the scenario index.
(2) Let M be the simulated scenario hours.
(3) Let U be the scenario units for both sides.
(4) Then ( ( SUM(M*U)[N] ) / SUM(M)[N] ) / 2 yields the average number of units commanded by the player during simulated hour.
Results (a player command complexity metric):
HTTR: 203
COTA: 90
BFTB: 146
Discussion:
Well, I think this is really interesting. It clearly shows that of the three games, COTA has the lowest level of play command complexity and that HTTR has the highest level of player command complexity. Rather interesting as BFTB has the best UI tools for managing player command complexity.
Additionally, there was some discussion elsewhere of which game would be the best for players who prefer smaller force sizes. COTA would appear to be the winner in that regard. And if you put aside improved features, then HTTR would seem to be the game for mega-battles.
Another interesting conclusion might be when combined with performance benchmarking that COTA is the best of three games for very low spec systems. Yes, HTTR was less CPU intensive than the other two games, but not by a factor of 2X.
Now, a further interesting result might be to gather the area (square kilometers) covered by each scenario and once again weight the unit counts by this new metric. So far, we have looked at complexity by time. However, complexity by space and time might also prove to be quite interesting.
DISCLAIMER: All of these calculations and conclusions have not been independently verified and are subject to incorrect assumptions, math errors, and plain old human error.
I am making the following two items available in my own Web space until Matrix posts it.
(1) BFTB one page keyboard reference
(2) BFTB scenario complexity analysis (both as an XLS for you to manipulate and a PDF for those who don't use spreadsheets)
I would also like to share some analysis of the scenarios as to what you get in BFTB:
27 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
36/343/106 duration in hours
62/655/258 total units
3/22/12 Axis objectives
3/25/13 Allied objectives
And how this compares with COTA:
32 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
24/209/102 duration in hours
29/326/146 total units
2/17/8 Axis objectives
2/29/10 Allied objectives
Just eye balling this data, I can say that the biggest growth in complexity with BFTB has been a substantial growth in the number of units commanded and a moderate increase in the number of objectives per scenario. I should note that since the engine provides for hiearchical command through AI agents, the player complexity of say doubling the number of units in a scenario tends to scale much better for the player than traditional "command every unit" or "stack based" war games.
This should also help those who want to get a sense of what you get with your BFTB purchase. Note: that each scenario may include random force deployments, variable reinforcement arrivals, non-scripted AI that is unlikely to do the same thing every time, and quite a number of parameters which you can tweak to make things harder or easier on a per scenario basis.
Enjoy!
http://home.comcast.net/~markshot/tempi ... wikRef.zip
---
NEW STUFF
I just completed a similar analysis for HTTR (raw data to be posted shortly in the HTTR forum). So, if you care to compare:
37 Scenarios
(Min/Max/Avg)
12/230/83 duration in hours
26/700/251 total units
2/18/9 Axis objectives
2/18/9 Allied objectives
I think the most interesting thing which I see here is that HTTR well exceeded COTA in terms of pushing scenarios with high unit counts. And the average number of units is comparable to BFTB. However, it is worth noting that HTTR offered a lot more smaller scenarios than BFTB. Where as on the whole BFTB has not too many small scenarios. HTTR's average pulled up by 6-8 very large scenarios.
It might be interesting to compute the "normalized unit complexity" of these three games. I would define that as total units in all scenarios divided by the total duration of all scenarios. My guess is that BFTB would score quite a bit higher in the rating. Oh, well ... an exercise for another day.
Off now to add HTTR to my comparative BFTB performance testing suite ...
MORE NEW STUFF
Here are some further statistics.
Total playable simulated scenario hours delivered with each game:
HTTR: 3085
COTA: 3273
BFTB: 2854
These numbers are so close, it would almost seem that someone planned this. But, as far as I know, that's not the case.
NOTE: This is really a minimal value, since this assuming a single play from just one side with only one set of balance adjustment options.
---
I am finally ready to compute my normalized complexity metric for each game.
Assumption: For the purpose of this analysis, all units are assumed to be present at the start of each scenario which is not the case. However, a more accurate calculation taking into consideration of arrival times is beyond my manual methods of analysis.
Methodology:
(1) Let N be the scenario index.
(2) Let M be the simulated scenario hours.
(3) Let U be the scenario units for both sides.
(4) Then ( ( SUM(M*U)[N] ) / SUM(M)[N] ) / 2 yields the average number of units commanded by the player during simulated hour.
Results (a player command complexity metric):
HTTR: 203
COTA: 90
BFTB: 146
Discussion:
Well, I think this is really interesting. It clearly shows that of the three games, COTA has the lowest level of play command complexity and that HTTR has the highest level of player command complexity. Rather interesting as BFTB has the best UI tools for managing player command complexity.
Additionally, there was some discussion elsewhere of which game would be the best for players who prefer smaller force sizes. COTA would appear to be the winner in that regard. And if you put aside improved features, then HTTR would seem to be the game for mega-battles.
Another interesting conclusion might be when combined with performance benchmarking that COTA is the best of three games for very low spec systems. Yes, HTTR was less CPU intensive than the other two games, but not by a factor of 2X.
Now, a further interesting result might be to gather the area (square kilometers) covered by each scenario and once again weight the unit counts by this new metric. So far, we have looked at complexity by time. However, complexity by space and time might also prove to be quite interesting.
DISCLAIMER: All of these calculations and conclusions have not been independently verified and are subject to incorrect assumptions, math errors, and plain old human error.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
- PirateJock
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:59 pm
- Location: North West, UK
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Hi MarkShot
Thanks for this; very useful and saves me a couple of hours better spent playing the game [:)]
Cheers
Thanks for this; very useful and saves me a couple of hours better spent playing the game [:)]
Cheers
Combat Command Matrix Edition Company, The Forgotten Few
- Chad Harrison
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
- Location: Boise, ID - USA
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Mark
Thank you so much!
I was just trying to figure out a clever way to do the same thing. Thanks for putting it together for all of us.
Chad
Thank you so much!
I was just trying to figure out a clever way to do the same thing. Thanks for putting it together for all of us.
Chad
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Folks,
You're welcome! But it's not like I wasn't going to use this stuff myself.
The keyboard reference was derived from one I did for COTA. The BFTB sheet was done a year ago, but I quickly checked it against the manual before posting. There might be a few minor things missing. So, it might be worth browsing the manual yourselves.
I am actually reading/skimming the manual myself at the moment. What a joy compared to so many games released these days. I haven't really looked at it for about six months since we did the errors and omissions review. The BFTB docs are old school and remind me of the golden days of Dynamix, Microprose, and Spectrum Holobyte.
You're welcome! But it's not like I wasn't going to use this stuff myself.
The keyboard reference was derived from one I did for COTA. The BFTB sheet was done a year ago, but I quickly checked it against the manual before posting. There might be a few minor things missing. So, it might be worth browsing the manual yourselves.
I am actually reading/skimming the manual myself at the moment. What a joy compared to so many games released these days. I haven't really looked at it for about six months since we did the errors and omissions review. The BFTB docs are old school and remind me of the golden days of Dynamix, Microprose, and Spectrum Holobyte.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Thanks a lot for the keyboard ref, thats sure to come in handy
OUW (Order of the Upgrade Wars)
There are folks out there with way too much time on their hands.
- Norm Koger
There are folks out there with way too much time on their hands.
- Norm Koger
- Talon_XBMCX
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:42 am
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Very helpful ... thanks!
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
The files in the package are a gift, many thanks MarkShot!
I would say a further thank you to any more infos per scenario you ever wanted to share, however personal or anecdotal, in the worksheet, as I love this series but find it takes me to my outer ability parameters aka every ounce of help, brings more happiness for me )
xKabbers
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Bumped for TGB.
(I've asked Matrix to put this zip into the Members Area, but I cannot check that, since I got my copy of the game by being a Beta and Matrix has yet to create a transaction record for me.)
(I've asked Matrix to put this zip into the Members Area, but I cannot check that, since I got my copy of the game by being a Beta and Matrix has yet to create a transaction record for me.)
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39325
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
FYI, this is now also available in the Members Club.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
BUMP
See first post under "NEW STUFF" for comparative scenario analysis relative to HTTR.
See first post under "NEW STUFF" for comparative scenario analysis relative to HTTR.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
thanks Mark
All the best
Stephen
i5 Win 10 8GB RAM
Stephen
i5 Win 10 8GB RAM
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
Bump for those following this thread.
See "More New Stuff" (red highlight) in the first post for even more analysis.
See "More New Stuff" (red highlight) in the first post for even more analysis.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
I find BftB loads up the scenario far quicker than CotA...
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
The complexity might be misleading but I am not sure. Most of the BFTB scenarios have units entering during the battle, and if you have not taken those into account then BTFB might be more complex than HTTR. Even the BTFB has most units entering after the start of the scenario!
Henri
Henri
RE: BFTBQwikRef Download Available (Kybd + Scenario)
I am not sure of where we are in the discussion, but I will just point out that the unit counts I reported in the XLSs where for scenario defaults and includes all units (start + reinforcements). Of course, the normalized calculations were done by applying the total units across all scenario hours. This is, in fact, somewhat inaccurate, but otherwise it would have required a great deal of work to segment the data by statistical arrival windows.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
- Templer_12
- Posts: 1707
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:29 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
What times are correct?
@ MarkShot
MarkShot’s BFTB Mouse/Keyboard (USA layout) Quick Reference (05/19/09) says:
ENEMY UNIT DISPLAY FILTERS
Cycles between:
Current sightings ( within last 15 minutes )
Recent sightings ( 16 minutes - 1 hour )
All sightings
The BftB Game Manual page 161 says:
Assessing a Sighting
Sightings of enemy units are rated by Age and Reliability. Age is given as either
Current (sighted within the last five minutes)
Recent (sighted within the last hour)
What times are correct?
MarkShot’s BFTB Mouse/Keyboard (USA layout) Quick Reference (05/19/09) says:
ENEMY UNIT DISPLAY FILTERS
Cycles between:
Current sightings ( within last 15 minutes )
Recent sightings ( 16 minutes - 1 hour )
All sightings
The BftB Game Manual page 161 says:
Assessing a Sighting
Sightings of enemy units are rated by Age and Reliability. Age is given as either
Current (sighted within the last five minutes)
Recent (sighted within the last hour)
What times are correct?
RE: What times are correct?
I am not sure for BFTB. But I am pretty certain that it wasn't changed from HTTR/COTA and from playing the others you can simply watch the clock and the status reported of a particular contact change over time from current -> recent.
When you are in close proximity to the enemy and the Sun goes up or down, lots of contact pop in and out like subatomic particles in a collider.
When you are in close proximity to the enemy and the Sun goes up or down, lots of contact pop in and out like subatomic particles in a collider.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: What times are correct?
Sorry ... I forgot to say ... I believe 15 minutes is the correct figure.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:33 am
RE: What times are correct?
Could anyone reupload the BFTBQwikRef.zip? It seems, the link has expired or something (404 error). And I can't find it on my HDD.
RE: What times are correct?
Same here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
ORIGINAL: Konrad_Novak
Could anyone reupload the BFTBQwikRef.zip? It seems, the link has expired or something (404 error). And I can't find it on my HDD.