Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Future Directions - Features

 
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] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 9:19:09 AM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

It is our intention to head in this direction - ie allowing a free form draw layer. Not sure when we will get there, though.

Hooray! I'll wait!

In the meantime, however, I might take a look at writing something to do this via a separate program. I've been looking for a reasonable and interesting home project. I'll make do with screenshot stitching for now, but if you feel like adding an export-to-image function to map maker... :-)

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 421
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 1:18:01 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanO


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

quote:


Instead of burdening the software with maintaining an "current" and a "planning" cache in real time, the "current" can be exported to a separate program for planning purposes.

It's little different from what goes on in a combat operations center where real time graphics are pinned to a wall and tactical / strategic specialists move pins around on the map to determine the best options for progressing from the last known deployment of friendly and enemy forces.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm entirely clear as to what you mean here, sorry. Do you mean dynamic planning? I'm only talking about static drawing on a map, preferably with some predefined brushes (arrows, shading areas, NATO symbols) and text. The sort of thing I'd normally do in my head or on a bit of paper. It doesn't need to be anything more complex than that.



Your concept addresses the concern.

It was about burdening the engine by maintaining a "current situation" layer with planning tools available (LOS, Threat, Routing, Formation Modes, etc.) and adding a "planning" layer with the same utilities available to the software burdens.

If I were to prioritize, I'd rather see modelling capabilities for dismounted operations, river crossing / beach landing, denial of maneuver (minefields / anti-mobility emplacements), and a future air mobility capability (defining drop zones at game start with a pre-planned stub to morph to helicopter airmobile operations) winning a bigger claim on the engine's "new" software burden(s).



_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 422
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 1:33:19 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7995
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I agree with Jim..his requests, esp dismounted troops, I feel are a priority. The planning layer tools etc would be a "cool" feature but not one that really improves gameplay at a fundamental level.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 423
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 1:55:54 PM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
Of course, I agree with you both! I'd much rather resources were put into gameplay additions and updates as well as planning aids that can't be done outside the engine. The drawing layers would just be a convenience. Definitely a Would Be Nice feature, not a Requirement. :-)

Personally, I'd prefer more complex recon modelling first, but someone already mentioned that, so I suggested something I'd not seen (in the pages I'd read).

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 424
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 4:32:58 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I totally disagree with all three of you with regards to how important the tactical overlay is.

Unless you already do all your planning on a piece of paper first, or are good enough to be able to remember it all in your head.
Its at the core to the whole command ops theme.
That's the main reason the orders delay, is there, its all about encouraging you to form a plan, to get and maintain the initiative over the enemy.

If you don't plan out your scenario, then you just end up reacting to the enemy rather than following a thought out plan, and an overlay that allows you to create and follow, but also adapt if necessary, that plan easily, is a huge help.
In a short scenario I would say that half the total time spent playing it, should be spent planning it with the overlay tool, before you even go near the play button, and for me anyway, is a large part of the enjoyment of it.

On a larger one, you could probably spend a whole gaming session just drawing on it, and researching your objectives, reserves, quality of the troops, ground, LOS, choke points etc.

Having an overlay for your map makes it easy to see if you are still on course to achieve your objectives, and exactly where you had planned to send your reinforcements, all at the touch of a button.
It allows you to plot enemy observed movements, mark on impassable terrain, even draw in your own contour lines in key areas.
You can mark on the best positions for OP's that you checked with the LOS tool during daylight, so that you can move into them during the night without forgetting where they are, mark the last known position of that infiltrating enemy unit so that when the Intel wears off you remember that one is there.
I think I mentioned this before, but you can even write stuff like don't forget to pick up the wife on it.
The possibilities are endless.

How many Corps Commanders do you think never marked their plans on an overlay map, and just relied upon current and past Intel for their ops? Not many I bet, and as we are meant to be wearing their hat, I think we should have a simulation of the kind of tools that they would have been using on a daily basis.

Don't let the enemy have the initiative, plan your battles ;)

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 425
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 5:25:42 PM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
I agree with your estimation of the utility of overlay drawing and I absolutely agree that planning is fundamental. Like I said in an earlier post, I often screenshot the maps and do my own planning in a paint program or I'll print them out and go the pen and paper route. I find this very useful but somewhat long-winded, hence my request for in-game support.

All that being said, however, I do think I could get by with this approach, whereas adding or fixing some gameplay features is something that only PG can do, so I'd rather they concentrated on that.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 426
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/25/2013 8:40:10 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7995
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.

< Message edited by wodin -- 7/25/2013 8:42:37 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 427
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/29/2013 9:27:36 AM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
This thread reminded me that it'd be really useful for the scenario chooser screens to have more information, particularly scenario size. In addition, it'd be useful to be able to sort the scenarios by date.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 428
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/31/2013 8:31:39 AM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
A somewhat more far-fetched idea now:

It would be very interesting to be able to turn on fog-of-war for friendly units.

I envisage that the for the purposes of visibility the player would assume the role of the on-map-boss. All units would send status information to their immediate superior, who would collate the information and send that information to their superior, until it reaches the OMB.

It would basically be like order dissemination but reversed and the information packets wouldn't be orders but status updates. Report-delay would be the time it takes for a unit to report its status to its superior. The reported data would be filtered according to the current posture of the unit (resting == excellent, engaged == vague) or whatever else affects its ability to report.

Additional tweaks would be stuff like allowing the OMB to assign resources to increase the accuracy and decrease the delay of reports.


I'm not entirely sure this idea would actually be *fun*. :D Interesting, though. Also, probably a massive pain to retrofit into an existing engine. ;)

edit: Again, apologies if this is an old idea!

< Message edited by DanO -- 7/31/2013 8:33:30 AM >

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 429
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/2/2013 1:36:06 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2268
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DanO

A somewhat more far-fetched idea now:

It would be very interesting to be able to turn on fog-of-war for friendly units.

I envisage that the for the purposes of visibility the player would assume the role of the on-map-boss. All units would send status information to their immediate superior, who would collate the information and send that information to their superior, until it reaches the OMB.

It would basically be like order dissemination but reversed and the information packets wouldn't be orders but status updates. Report-delay would be the time it takes for a unit to report its status to its superior. The reported data would be filtered according to the current posture of the unit (resting == excellent, engaged == vague) or whatever else affects its ability to report.

Additional tweaks would be stuff like allowing the OMB to assign resources to increase the accuracy and decrease the delay of reports.


I'm not entirely sure this idea would actually be *fun*. :D Interesting, though. Also, probably a massive pain to retrofit into an existing engine. ;)

edit: Again, apologies if this is an old idea!

It would be a lot of fun. IIRC it was proposed before and the answer was no, because it would increase system requirements to scientific supercomputer levels.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 430
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/2/2013 11:04:17 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
It sounds like a completely different game concept to me.

Not saying its a bad idea, but not really something I would be interested in.
I think it would get very confusing, with orders delays on the way out, then more delays, and miss information coming back.

Very realistic I guess, but I'm to much of a control freak to put up with that

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 431
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/2/2013 1:14:22 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
I would like a map mode where I can see the actual footprint of units on the map all the time. It would give a much better visual reference to see what units are doing (ie. when things are obviously in line, march column, reorganising etc). Just shade the boxes in Allied Green and Axis Grey and keep the current unit info box in the middle of it.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 432
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/2/2013 2:53:51 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
You can do this very quickly by zooming out a bit, and drag selecting everything you are interested in, this will show the footprints of all the units that are selected.
Unfortunately this won't be permanent though as you have requested, because when you select another individual, or group of units it will de-select the others, and you wont be able to see the footprints for them until you select them again.

You can also select all the units under a particular HQ by holding down shift, and pressing the down arrow key.
If you do this for the on map boss, with the Organic command structure option selected, it will select all the units on the map after a few repeat applications of the down arrow.

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 433
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/13/2013 12:04:34 PM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline
Hello...I have not played this game for quite a while...(I have not had it installed on my new computer)...
but i recently installed. and i like playing it and the future for the series looks very intresting !

I have not read this entire thread so i appologize if my suggestion has already been mentioned...

After recently started playing again one new feature i think would be nice would be to be able to click on the incons in the list (reinforcements tab)and expand (like the OB-display) that reinforcement info to show an actual list of all the units arraving at that time.

As it is now it only gives me the number of units arriving and the senior HQ. I know i can check this in the OB-display but i think that it would be simpler if a could just expand the reinforcements list...



(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 434
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/14/2013 1:18:00 AM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.




And obstacles, both wire and dragon's teeth?

And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.

But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.

but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.




_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 435
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/14/2013 12:55:55 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.

. . .
And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.


I like the idea.

quote:


But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.


The threat tool allows the player to determine which units are targeting the selected unit. I think what you're asking for is a kind of "area threat" display taking into account all the known enemy units and their potential to see, and thus target areas of the map.
quote:



but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.




Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.




_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 436
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/14/2013 2:17:14 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
An old request but one worth repeating: The post-game situation view should give perfect information rather than what it gives now. If I'm going to learn from a game then I need to know what proportion of enemy units remain from the scenario start, what their ammo state is, whether or not they were in supply etc.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 437
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/14/2013 9:31:08 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU



. . .
And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.


I like the idea.

quote:


But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.


The threat tool allows the player to determine which units are targeting the selected unit. I think what you're asking for is a kind of "area threat" display taking into account all the known enemy units and their potential to see, and thus target areas of the map.
quote:



Sorry, I must not have explained well. I want an overview, based on the factors above, of an estimate of the security "screen" on the map. In other words, I want to see where, based on those factors, I am most at risk of infiltration by the enemy.


but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.




Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.






I have read any number of accounts where reserves and even new replacements were fed directly into the line. The would arrive at the relevant CP and most often be picked up by an NCO and troops that had come back from the line to obtain supplies and food, and then would be led back to the line and placed into foxholes with little or no orientation as to even where the MLR was. At best, their foxhole mate has been on the line for a while and could fill them in a bit.

This, of course, applies to infantry. But I believe even in the book "Death Traps" it describes that repaired and repainted shermans were fed into the line with green crews to replace casualties during an operation - not between operations. At best they were told something like "the enemy is in that direction...." and off they would go.

So I would like to see for multi-day operations an ability to have a certain number of troops and equipment replaced on the line. I would not be a huge number, but getting a couple of shermans back on day 3 that were lost on day 1 is not unrealistic. A sherman could be taken out by one penetrating round taking out the crew. They would patch it, paint over the blood and a new crew would take it back into the line.


_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 438
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/15/2013 8:45:28 AM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
Another one: I'd like to be able to change the time on the LOS tools. In other words, rather than just getting LOS for the current time, I'd like to know what it will be at some time I specify. It's a bit of pain to have to make plans based on extrapolating from the current state. I very rarely care about LOS at the current time.

Of course, one might say that the LOS of tool shouldn't exist at all because it's a bit gamey, but it does, so I'd like to have it be a bit more functionally useful. It's either that or allow me to overlay a higher-resolution gradient map, rather than the broader current gradient. Then I'll figure it out like I'm supposed to.

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 439
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/15/2013 1:41:53 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.





quote:

Major SNAFU:

I have read any number of accounts where reserves and even new replacements were fed directly into the line. The would arrive at the relevant CP and most often be picked up by an NCO and troops that had come back from the line to obtain supplies and food, and then would be led back to the line and placed into foxholes with little or no orientation as to even where the MLR was. At best, their foxhole mate has been on the line for a while and could fill them in a bit.

This, of course, applies to infantry. But I believe even in the book "Death Traps" it describes that repaired and repainted shermans were fed into the line with green crews to replace casualties during an operation - not between operations. At best they were told something like "the enemy is in that direction...." and off they would go.

So I would like to see for multi-day operations an ability to have a certain number of troops and equipment replaced on the line. I would not be a huge number, but getting a couple of shermans back on day 3 that were lost on day 1 is not unrealistic. A sherman could be taken out by one penetrating round taking out the crew. They would patch it, paint over the blood and a new crew would take it back into the line.



It's the repair and repainting I was speaking of when discussing perhaps allowing some equipment to return. Certain types of "kills" on a tank, truck, or a gun don't necessarily destroy the weapon system or harm the crew but make it inoperative and in need of repair (consider a flat tire on a truck as a relatively minor example).

Particularly in the case of penetrating rounds, the repairs are significantly more complicated than "patching and painting" and would take longer to perform.

If a round can kill a crew with the debris from the armor it shatters to penetrate the tank it can also do significant damage to those things inside the tank necessary for it to fight effectively.

The hole on the outside of the area hit is much smaller than the crater on the inside the effective penetration created. In effect a penetrating round turns the inner armor into shrapnel (determined by the weight and velocity of the penetrating projectile and the hardening of the armor), which kills the crew in close proximity and does significant damage to hydraulic lines, communications equipment, controls, sights, and turret, automotive, and gun control mechanisms / motors.

It takes time to evaluate what is necessary to return the platform to some form of operational state (ability to move and shoot as a minimum) and more beyond that to repair / replace components necessary to return it to that state.

If it's a mobility kill, where the track was cut (often the result of damage in a minefield), the time is relatively short so long as enough links of track or a road wheel on hand to repair the a mobility kill (the reason why some tanks have lengths of track and spare wheels hung on their front glacis). The crew can usually return the vehicle to operation in a few hours with immediate track repairs.

More significant damage (suspension, interior, control mechanisms, armor) require more refined skills and as a minimum the transport of technicians, parts, and equipment to the damage site, if a repair is capable of being performed in place.

More time yet is necessary for recovery (towing / restoring minimal movement by crew to drive the vehicle to the rear) and repair at a static repair point.

None of this is currently modeled directly in the game.

Though not explicitly modeled, there's a flavor from the unit effectiveness measures for a combat unit, and the recovery times necessary to restore a unit's combat effectiveness from those situations.

As far as combat replacements (manpower) being added, given the lag time between when a unit suffers a combat loss and the military bureaucracy could respond to that loss, I don't think including it in the game time scales is realistic.

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 440
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/15/2013 7:10:08 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
The book "Death Traps" is worth reading.

Bit of an eye opener the "hose it out, weld a plate over the hole, give it to a green crew." (The author, Belton Cooper, was a combat/repair engineer).

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 441
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/15/2013 7:33:53 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


It's the repair and repainting I was speaking of when discussing perhaps allowing some equipment to return. Certain types of "kills" on a tank, truck, or a gun don't necessarily destroy the weapon system or harm the crew but make it inoperative and in need of repair (consider a flat tire on a truck as a relatively minor example).

Particularly in the case of penetrating rounds, the repairs are significantly more complicated than "patching and painting" and would take longer to perform.

If a round can kill a crew with the debris from the armor it shatters to penetrate the tank it can also do significant damage to those things inside the tank necessary for it to fight effectively.

The hole on the outside of the area hit is much smaller than the crater on the inside the effective penetration created. In effect a penetrating round turns the inner armor into shrapnel (determined by the weight and velocity of the penetrating projectile and the hardening of the armor), which kills the crew in close proximity and does significant damage to hydraulic lines, communications equipment, controls, sights, and turret, automotive, and gun control mechanisms / motors.

It takes time to evaluate what is necessary to return the platform to some form of operational state (ability to move and shoot as a minimum) and more beyond that to repair / replace components necessary to return it to that state.

If it's a mobility kill, where the track was cut (often the result of damage in a minefield), the time is relatively short so long as enough links of track or a road wheel on hand to repair the a mobility kill (the reason why some tanks have lengths of track and spare wheels hung on their front glacis). The crew can usually return the vehicle to operation in a few hours with immediate track repairs.

More significant damage (suspension, interior, control mechanisms, armor) require more refined skills and as a minimum the transport of technicians, parts, and equipment to the damage site, if a repair is capable of being performed in place.

More time yet is necessary for recovery (towing / restoring minimal movement by crew to drive the vehicle to the rear) and repair at a static repair point.

None of this is currently modeled directly in the game.

Though not explicitly modeled, there's a flavor from the unit effectiveness measures for a combat unit, and the recovery times necessary to restore a unit's combat effectiveness from those situations.

As far as combat replacements (manpower) being added, given the lag time between when a unit suffers a combat loss and the military bureaucracy could respond to that loss, I don't think including it in the game time scales is realistic.

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.



Hi Jim,

I think we are mostly in agreement and I see your points. I have only what I read to go upon, rather than actual experience. However, being both a volunteer firefighter and EMT, in addition to many other things, I also know that there is often a huge disparity between "How is should be done" and "How it is done in the heat (literally!) of the moment".

My singular comment here concerns the combat replacements. The issue is that the scenarios being played in this game are small snippets of the overall war. So there should be, just as there would have been, a constant influx of replacements and material coming into the theater. It is not that the HQs involved in the actual scenario would be initiating this process during the time-frame of the scenario. The replacements being received "today" might have been requisitioned weeks or perhaps months ago. So I would suggest that there be the ability to set a size of a replacement pool as part of the scenario design. This pool would be in existence from the very moment the clock starts because what is in the pool at that time was requisitioned before the current scenario existed.

Otherwise, what is being said is that there was no "war machine" is existence and operation prior to the start of the scenario, which, unless you are playing something like Kassarine following Operation Torch would be very unlikely to be the case.

I humbly suggest that very rarely did any commander with solid LOC to supply ever end a significant battle with only exactly the troops and equipment he entered the battle with, if the battle lasted over a day or two and there were replacements available somewhere in the localized theater. Excepting situations like the pacific island battles.

But perhaps I am totally off base, and please let me know if I am as I am always willing to learn something new.






< Message edited by Major SNAFU -- 8/16/2013 12:07:55 AM >


_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 442
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/16/2013 12:10:44 AM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

The book "Death Traps" is worth reading.

Bit of an eye opener the "hose it out, weld a plate over the hole, give it to a green crew." (The author, Belton Cooper, was a combat/repair engineer).



Yeah, and the reason they painted it was because the replacement crews would otherwise be a bit put off by the "remainders". I can't - well I can a bit after pulling some people out of cars, imagine what the remainders looked like.

_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 443
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/16/2013 1:26:59 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7995
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Reinforcements\replacements would be cool and are needed to make CO more realistic...also yes I've read many accounts of replacements being put straight into the firing line during operations.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 444
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/17/2013 3:27:29 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanO

Another one: I'd like to be able to change the time on the LOS tools. In other words, rather than just getting LOS for the current time, I'd like to know what it will be at some time I specify. It's a bit of pain to have to make plans based on extrapolating from the current state. I very rarely care about LOS at the current time.

Of course, one might say that the LOS of tool shouldn't exist at all because it's a bit gamey, but it does, so I'd like to have it be a bit more functionally useful. It's either that or allow me to overlay a higher-resolution gradient map, rather than the broader current gradient. Then I'll figure it out like I'm supposed to.



I also agree with this. Even if you could only do it prior to starting the clock.

_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 445
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/18/2013 5:27:05 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


. . .

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.



Hi Jim,

I think we are mostly in agreement and I see your points. I have only what I read to go upon, rather than actual experience. However, being both a volunteer firefighter and EMT, in addition to many other things, I also know that there is often a huge disparity between "How is should be done" and "How it is done in the heat (literally!) of the moment".

My singular comment here concerns the combat replacements. The issue is that the scenarios being played in this game are small snippets of the overall war. So there should be, just as there would have been, a constant influx of replacements and material coming into the theater. It is not that the HQs involved in the actual scenario would be initiating this process during the time-frame of the scenario. The replacements being received "today" might have been requisitioned weeks or perhaps months ago. So I would suggest that there be the ability to set a size of a replacement pool as part of the scenario design. This pool would be in existence from the very moment the clock starts because what is in the pool at that time was requisitioned before the current scenario existed.

Otherwise, what is being said is that there was no "war machine" is existence and operation prior to the start of the scenario, which, unless you are playing something like Kassarine following Operation Torch would be very unlikely to be the case.

I humbly suggest that very rarely did any commander with solid LOC to supply ever end a significant battle with only exactly the troops and equipment he entered the battle with, if the battle lasted over a day or two and there were replacements available somewhere in the localized theater. Excepting situations like the pacific island battles.

But perhaps I am totally off base, and please let me know if I am as I am always willing to learn something new.



I think the issue is the length of the specific scenario and mapping out the effects during that time.

I can assure you (since I used to oversee the development of necessary data and procurement of the materials to support them) there were "seasoning" times associated with inserting replacements into an organization which would make the influx of soldiers into new jobs relatively moot for the length of the scenarios modeled in BftB.

Aside from the fact that previously requisitioned and assigned replacements might arrive during a battle, they are shoring up weaknesses caused by former battles (e.g. casualties, promotions, administrative transfers, and the like).

Inserting new people, even "seasoned" veterans into another unit lead to training, experience, cohesion, and perhaps morale impacts on unit capabilities until the "newbies" overcome the learning curve to optimum individual, team, and unit effectiveness.

One way to account for a replacement flow is to globally reduce the actual casualty count by a percentage of the known replacement flow and to globally increase the training, experience, and cohesion penalty factors for the unit slightly more severely than they are addressed now.

You'd nominally replace some of the "lost" bodies, but those replacements would not function as effectively as the original occupants, thus penalizing the unit even if it starts at full strength, remains at full strength because previously requisitioned replacements arrived to replace those lost during combat or shore up a crew that started up short a member at the start of combat and returned to full strength during combat.

Another may be to initiate a discussion among those who have designed scenarios to determine if the unit strength / effectiveness measurements and commander effectiveness measures that can be built into scenario estabs take into account (or could take into account) the replacement issues you cite.














_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 446
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/19/2013 11:06:45 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 447
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/23/2013 9:59:34 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.



I was debating about responding to this as I don't want be guilty of ingemination on this topic, but I feel I must share the following:

(BTW the spell checker on this forum is ignorant of the word "ingemination".)


From "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. I know that this applies to a US armored division, but this game features same and since this is a "future" thread, I feel the game should eventually reflect the particular abilities of each nations logistical abilities. Moreover, to better simulate reality, the game should reflect, as best as is possible, what the actual operational procedures were and not the procedures and doctrines "by the book".

First a short bit on Mr. Cooper's background:

Trained as an Ordnance officer, the additional training at the Armored Force School at Ft. Knox.

Served as a maintenance liaison officer with the 3rd Armored division.

..."In a reinforced heavy armored division, like the 3rd armored division, out of some 17,000 troops we had ordnance maintenance battalion of over 1,000 men... if you count the maintenance soldiers in the maintenance companies of two armored regiments and the armored infantry plus the maintenance of the 3 armored artillery regiment, tank destroyer battalion, anitaircraft battalion ... an additional 1,000 maintenance soldiers. The (3rd Div) had some 4,2000 vehicles... ... out of 17,000 men approximately 10,400 were involved directly or indirectly in maintenance."

"AS the spearhead of the First Army in all of these major operations the 3rd Armored Division destroyed more Germans tanks... .. CCB destroyed more German tanks than any other unit within the division... ... As the maintenance ordnance officer for CCB of the 3rd Armored Division, I believe I have seen more battle damaged American tanks that any other living American."

"Although the vehicles being replaced were actually those that had been destroyed two days before, the fact that we brought fresh vehicles every twenty-five hours enabled Combat Command to maintain a reasonable degree of its combat strength."

"With ever-increasing vehicle casualties, it became obvious that we had to forget the regulations and adopt a radically new procedure. ..."It became immediately obvious to the maintenance people in the field that it would be a disaster to follow the directive not to cannibalize certain tanks. They would have to do so in order to repair others and get them into operation quickly. The maintenance personnel decided to scrap the regulations and get on with the job of repairing the most vehicles in the least possible time and returning the to combat."

..."This was as it should have been, and it worked to the advantage of the entire division."


"Major A.C. Arrington was shocked when he saw the first combat loss report. ..."Cooper, you tell Captain Roquemore to forget the regulations and to cannibalize every vehicle he can to get those in the VCP (Vehicle Collection Point) running. He was glad to hear that the captain was already doing this on his own initiative."

There are examples in the book where a penetrating hole would be patched by taking the spent round, found in the tank, cutting off a piece of the round and welding it into the hole and then grinding it smooth and painting it.

Two further points:

1) We must bear in mind that in the scenarios in the game we are stepping into a continuum of action. The clock of the war does not coincide with the clock of the scenario.
2) I realize that not all Armies of all Nations had the wealth of material that the U.S. Army did, but when we are playing scenarios where we command U.S. Army units, this largess should be accounted for in terms of supplies, reinforcements, etc.



Just food for future thought.


< Message edited by Major SNAFU -- 8/23/2013 10:05:58 PM >


_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 448
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/23/2013 10:14:56 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

When the 'long' scenarios are 5-7 days in length and take place right on the spearheads of operations there's really no point in having a manpower replacement function. I simply don't believe that replacement actually happened in any meaningful way on either side during any of the scenarios that the game currently covers.

If the game is expanded on the Eastern front to have maps 5x the size and 30 day scenarios then maybe that consideration changes.


PS. The sensible way to implement replacements would be to simply have them arrive as a kind of supply and allow units to request reinforcement as part of their resupply.



I was debating about responding to this as I don't want be guilty of ingemination on this topic, but I feel I must share the following:

(BTW the spell checker on this forum is ignorant of the word "ingemination".)


From "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. I know that this applies to a US armored division, but this game features same and since this is a "future" thread, I feel the game should eventually reflect the particular abilities of each nations logistical abilities. Moreover, to better simulate reality, the game should reflect, as best as is possible, what the actual operational procedures were and not the procedures and doctrines "by the book".

First a short bit on Mr. Cooper's background:

Trained as an Ordnance officer, the additional training at the Armored Force School at Ft. Knox.

Served as a maintenance liaison officer with the 3rd Armored division.

..."In a reinforced heavy armored division, like the 3rd armored division, out of some 17,000 troops we had ordnance maintenance battalion of over 1,000 men... if you count the maintenance soldiers in the maintenance companies of two armored regiments and the armored infantry plus the maintenance of the 3 armored artillery regiment, tank destroyer battalion, anitaircraft battalion ... an additional 1,000 maintenance soldiers. The (3rd Div) had some 4,2000 vehicles... ... out of 17,000 men approximately 10,400 were involved directly or indirectly in maintenance."

"AS the spearhead of the First Army in all of these major operations the 3rd Armored Division destroyed more Germans tanks... .. CCB destroyed more German tanks than any other unit within the division... ... As the maintenance ordnance officer for CCB of the 3rd Armored Division, I believe I have seen more battle damaged American tanks that any other living American."

"Although the vehicles being replaced were actually those that had been destroyed two days before, the fact that we brought fresh vehicles every twenty-five hours enabled Combat Command to maintain a reasonable degree of its combat strength."

"With ever-increasing vehicle casualties, it became obvious that we had to forget the regulations and adopt a radically new procedure. ..."It became immediately obvious to the maintenance people in the field that it would be a disaster to follow the directive not to cannibalize certain tanks. They would have to do so in order to repair others and get them into operation quickly. The maintenance personnel decided to scrap the regulations and get on with the job of repairing the most vehicles in the least possible time and returning the to combat."

..."This was as it should have been, and it worked to the advantage of the entire division."


"Major A.C. Arrington was shocked when he saw the first combat loss report. ..."Cooper, you tell Captain Roquemore to forget the regulations and to cannibalize every vehicle he can to get those in the VCP (Vehicle Collection Point) running. He was glad to hear that the captain was already doing this on his own initiative."

There are examples in the book where a penetrating hole would be patched by taking the spent round, found in the tank, cutting off a piece of the round and welding it into the hole and then grinding it smooth and painting it.

Two further points:

1) We must bear in mind that in the scenarios in the game we are stepping into a continuum of action. The clock of the war does not coincide with the clock of the scenario.
2) I realize that not all Armies of all Nations had the wealth of material that the U.S. Army did, but when we are playing scenarios where we command U.S. Army units, this largess should be accounted for in terms of supplies, reinforcements, etc.



Just food for future thought.



The logistics "tooth to tail" quotient for the US during World War II was roughly 1:10.

For every military troop facing combat, there were 10 in support from North America through the guy firing rounds at the combat front.




_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 449
RE: Future Directions - Features - 9/24/2014 11:13:11 PM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 714
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Hi all,

Here is where you can discuss what engine features ( user interface, AI, networking etc ) we should focus on.

Please keep any discussion on price to the designated threads.

We are very much looking forward to your feedback on engine features.


I'll be back to kick start this in a while.


Hi Arjuna,

I just resurrected this thread so that you could "take it with you" during the move. There are scads of good ideas here,

Rob.


_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   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

0.131