I suspect that this game is a dream fulfilled. I have always argued that we ought to use computer power to make better wargames.
But the dream is not quite there – one further improvement is needed.
Most units are company sized – made up perhaps of 3 platoons.
I might have good reason to have 2 platoons forward and one held back or one forward and 2 held back – in a triangular formation.
Or have all 3 platoons lined up to march down a road or all 3 platoons lined up in extended line to initiate an ambush.
It would be great if the unit counters changed shape to represent the formation.
A furthur dream
Moderator: Arjuna
Nice idea Joe. Dreams are wonderful. Aren't they? 
Are you any good at drawing? If so why don't you come with some nice graphics for us to use.
One alternative is to have a breakdown/reform facility that would allow you to break the company down into its constituent platoons and then the force formation code would do the rest. This might work well for smaller scenarios but unfortunately would blow out the number of on-map units to an unplayable level for the larger scenarios. We're pushing the limits as it is on this.
Another alternative, is to design a scernario yourself with the companies already broken down - ie HQ unit, three platoon units. For smaller scenarios this would work fine. We would need extra estabs for this. If there was enough interest ( and hence worth our while ) we could make up some for the standard infantry and tank companies. What do others think?
Are you any good at drawing? If so why don't you come with some nice graphics for us to use.
One alternative is to have a breakdown/reform facility that would allow you to break the company down into its constituent platoons and then the force formation code would do the rest. This might work well for smaller scenarios but unfortunately would blow out the number of on-map units to an unplayable level for the larger scenarios. We're pushing the limits as it is on this.
Another alternative, is to design a scernario yourself with the companies already broken down - ie HQ unit, three platoon units. For smaller scenarios this would work fine. We would need extra estabs for this. If there was enough interest ( and hence worth our while ) we could make up some for the standard infantry and tank companies. What do others think?
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
-
CriticalMass
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:37 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
As far as I know the counter doesn't represent the unit footprint. When you select a unit, the white box does. Why not make this user defineable with moveable anchor point so you can make any kind of polygon shape. You could even have a detached box that would act as the recon element of the unit. Am I making sense, maybe I'll illustrate...
I think this was discussed over at battlefront, many moons ago.:rolleyes:
I think this was discussed over at battlefront, many moons ago.:rolleyes:
I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
-
CriticalMass
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:37 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
-
CriticalMass
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:37 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Originally posted by Arjuna
Nice idea Joe. Dreams are wonderful. Aren't they?
[snikp]
One alternative is to have a breakdown/reform facility that would allow you to break the company down into its constituent platoons and then the force formation code would do the rest. This might work well for smaller scenarios but unfortunately would blow out the number of on-map units to an unplayable level for the larger scenarios. We're pushing the limits as it is on this.
[snip]
Going down to Platoons may be too small, but playing the demo I've found that I have Battalion sized units in one counter and lots of Companies. I would like to be able to break up the Battalions into companies, and sometimes combine Companies into larger more managable single units.
Therefore, providing this breakdown/reform facility makes a lot of sense to me, and I think would help playability for those times when you want to reduce the number of little pictures on the screen (like when they are moving from place to place, or just defending an area) and other times when you want to micro manage an assault.
That Dan Guy
The micro/macro managing in this game is not really a function of unit size as it is a function of what level you choose to issue your orders at. So, your command structure could easily be five levels deep. But you can issue your orders at any particular level. All the levels below your assigned orders are automatically handled by your AI subordinates. This is one of the great strengths of this game. It's amazingly scalable.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
Hi all,
A long time ago, I already gave my opinion about the perfect scale of Airborne Assault. Now with some more gaming hours being me, I can hopefully better express my thoughts.
For me, Aiborne Assault is a game where I command battalions like in the old v4v and WaW from Atomic and the upcoming Battlefields!.
So, I give my orders to the first HQs on the line, the Bn HQ (sometimes higher, for convenience). And, I detach/re-attach companies to those Bn HQs, at will, using some for reco, micro-managing a defense, leaving the support platoon behind, etc...
That's why I think it's great that some previously Bn-sized are now splitted into companies.
I'll rephrase my point. To me, what is abstracted in games like v4v or Battlefields! (like Bn formation, facing and size) is modeled in AA, when those factors are usually dealt with dices, AA brings a "real-life" model. I like it (you bet
).
So, my conclusions are that :
- breaking units is not usefull,
- there is no need to micromanage the formation (sorry Critical, nice shot again
).
My 2 cents,
JeF.
PS: again, a long time ago, Panther announced the upcoming Nort Africa game, saying that given the size of the battles, they'll change the scale. Dave I think said : "it's a totaly different game.". It does not surprise me. Scale matters.
If you would like to try with platoons (why not squads ?), though.
Didn't I read a proposal from Dave to have the estab files for this ?
PS/2: re-reading the previous post, I think I said the same thing than Markshot with more words.
A long time ago, I already gave my opinion about the perfect scale of Airborne Assault. Now with some more gaming hours being me, I can hopefully better express my thoughts.
For me, Aiborne Assault is a game where I command battalions like in the old v4v and WaW from Atomic and the upcoming Battlefields!.
So, I give my orders to the first HQs on the line, the Bn HQ (sometimes higher, for convenience). And, I detach/re-attach companies to those Bn HQs, at will, using some for reco, micro-managing a defense, leaving the support platoon behind, etc...
That's why I think it's great that some previously Bn-sized are now splitted into companies.
I'll rephrase my point. To me, what is abstracted in games like v4v or Battlefields! (like Bn formation, facing and size) is modeled in AA, when those factors are usually dealt with dices, AA brings a "real-life" model. I like it (you bet
).So, my conclusions are that :
- breaking units is not usefull,
- there is no need to micromanage the formation (sorry Critical, nice shot again
).My 2 cents,
JeF.
PS: again, a long time ago, Panther announced the upcoming Nort Africa game, saying that given the size of the battles, they'll change the scale. Dave I think said : "it's a totaly different game.". It does not surprise me. Scale matters.
If you would like to try with platoons (why not squads ?), though.
Didn't I read a proposal from Dave to have the estab files for this ?
PS/2: re-reading the previous post, I think I said the same thing than Markshot with more words.
Rendez-vous at Loenen before 18:00.
Don't loose your wallet !
Conquest Of The Aegean Web Development Team
The Drop Zone
Don't loose your wallet !
Conquest Of The Aegean Web Development Team
The Drop Zone
For what it is worth, one of my favourite old board wargames was 'Anzio'. Here, a number of units could be broken down into their smaller components (Divisions to Regiments as far as I can remember) and reformed as necessary. When the unit was functioning as a Division it was represented by a single counter. Adopting a similar functionality in future AA based games might go some way to satisfying those players who like to micro-manage and those, like me, who prefer a less cluttered battlefield.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Getting Greedy Guys!
Perhaps, but I have money sitting here already reserved for this one. While I track various games and look interesting at the forums, I WANT THIS ONE ALREADY!!!
You guys should simply offer pre-sales where we can buy it in beta form.
Based purely on the location you have picked, it doesn't matter what you do, it will be a winner!
Market Garden is just one of *those* combination of battles that makes for a fantastic game concept purely because it really could have gone either way for Germany or the Allies. Rarely in wargames do you get one that is not cut and dried as far as outcomes. It is one of the great plans gone wrong scenarios. It really could have worked. It really was "a Bridge Too Far".