Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and.......

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/9/2011 10:26:50 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
JD2,

Yes you are correct using that example of yours. It all boils down to fidelity. In theory, we should conduct LOS checks between every 100m grid of the occupied area of the sightor to every 100m grid of the occupied area of the sightee. But with an average company occupying 300 x 300 that would mean 9 LOS checks every minute as opposed to 3. That would slow the game down a bit and I don't think that the added fidelity is worth that at this stage. As harware capabilities improve, then yes we can consider such an approach. But for now I thing the current method is acceptable. It's all a question of tradeoffs.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to johndoesecond)
Post #: 31
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/10/2011 1:23:38 PM   
johndoesecond


Posts: 964
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: offline
I agree on getting the tradeoffs right.

BTW, you were too optimistic: if there are 9 100m grids on average per unit, that would, pairwise, be 81 LOS checks per minute!

I'll think a bit more about it, maybe there are ways to optimise it.

... of course, I was asking just to better understand how BftB is designed now, and to suggest possible improvements (with this and with the recon thing) for the future evolution of the series.

Ah, what about my third question?


Thanks again.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 32
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/10/2011 10:38:35 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
RE your third question which was concerned with the need for units to have sightings before they can shoot. I should have explained that if a unit is within threat range ( 2 to 3,000m ) then a LOS check is done on it regardless of checks from other units. Each unit maintains a list of visible threats and any unit sighted by it within threat range is added.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to johndoesecond)
Post #: 33
Concerning Patrols... - 1/15/2011 11:56:56 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Re Better modelling of Defenceive tactics - ie patrolling. We've given serious consideration to this issue. The most realistic method is to allow for recon units of say section/squad strength to be hived off from a unit and move them along a patrol route or setup a static position. However, this was disgarded for performance reasons it could easily double the number of units in a scenario if only half of them were defending and each put out one mobile and one static patrol. An alternative option is to model it abstractly with units on the defence committing a certain percentage of their strength to patrolling. We could then manage the patrol by events with a route calced and say every five minutes doing a detection test from the location along the route that we deem it to be at. However, this still requires a significant amount of processing to generate the routes and to do the LOS checks. A further more abstract option is to simply extend a patrol zone out from the unit and provide a percentage chance of detection against any enemy unit entering that zone. This would be economical from a processing perspective but would be fairly abstract.


I have been thinking about this problem a lot too recently, and think that for now, as an upgrade to BFTB, that you go with your third option:
"Simply extend a patrol zone out from the unit and provide a percentage chance of detection against any enemy units entering that zone. This would be economical from a pocessing perspective but would be fairly abstract".

I think BFTB needs this, as I have woken up in Bastogne as the Americans with German motorized units on my doorstep more than once, wondering how they got through. Your third option is not only simple and is better than nothing, but until you can get a more advanced system in place in a decade as computing power grows, it is also badly needed.

Increase chances of detection of units which make a lot of noise.

Increase chances of detection if on the road or at a cross roads (places most likely to be watched).

Make the effectiveness of the patrol depend on some combination of experience, leader efficiency, staff quality, % of estab, fitness, training, aggro, etc.

Ignore losses to patrols for now.

I highly recommend a super rudimentary patrol system, and then if players don't like its overly abstract nature, provide it as an option. But, understanding the limitations of: a) computing power, b) your programming time, I would be very happy with your "rudimentary" system as it would be better than no system at all. Should be at least an ABSTRACT patrolling system noticing how often mechanized units get close to, around, and even into Bastogne --and even right in behind 4-5 of my units which had formed a tight "U" (I kid you not, a unit of 9 STUGIIIs appeared within 200 to 300 meters)--overnight without anyone having detected this. As I said, time and increased computing power will make better simulations possible in the future. But we need abstract now. :)

Yes, your recommendation is "abstract", but it would be less abstract than the system in place now. :)

Perhaps you can even add a new button, "patrol aggro" and "patrol range" if you want to go one step beyond "abstract" and assume some losses from "overlapping patrols" with enemy units occassionally. However, I would assume that there are no direct losses from combat and these are all resolved as is--except for the new "patrol" interaction. Patrol aggressiveness and range would all have an effect on % chance of spotting enemy units.


< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 1/16/2011 4:09:48 PM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 34
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/24/2011 10:54:51 PM   
BK6583

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline
I have a broader question regarding this scenario - is it worth trying as the Germans against the AI? I've never really mastered the art of withdrawal and delay but when I played the Americans straight up, by using nothing but move commands, I went through the Germans like I couldn't believe. Had a complete German surrender by D4. Never conducted even so much as one assault.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 35
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/26/2011 3:59:31 AM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
BK6583, I assume you play with realistic orders delay on? Anyway I would say yes give it a go as Germans, it should be a challenge!

btw I don't use assault much either, unless I really have to punch through something and my guys are well rested.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to BK6583)
Post #: 36
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/26/2011 8:33:13 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
If you don't use assault does that mean your units haven't shaken out into attack formation? If so and it works fine isn't this a problem with the game design? As it makes assaults and all that fancy shaking out into formation pointless....

Or does aggressive moves mean they still move in attack formation....so whats the benefit for assaults? Are they good for the initial attack through entrenched posistions and anything else just use aggressive move?

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 37
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/26/2011 12:52:08 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
wodin, I probably should have said I don't use assault all the time...

Assaulting provides a safer and more effective advance into the combat zone, with less chance of your forces routing or retreating until the task is done. When you are up against the brittle crust of the German Army like in this scenario you can get away with aggro-moving into the fray and let the overwhelming US firepower do its job until the Germans have routed away.

Getting the Germans to surrender by D4 is pretty impressive assuming it was played for the first time, and with realistic orders delay.

< Message edited by simovitch -- 1/26/2011 4:19:23 PM >


_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 38
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/30/2011 10:52:24 PM   
Agema

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline
There are a few missions I've tried as the Americans which are insanely easy. Both of the Meuse (Peiper Crosses and Mayhem) missions, Greyhound Dash, and this. You've got so much of an advantage in numbers and/or quality, there's just no contest.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 39
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 1/31/2011 1:38:25 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I'd say if the missions are easy and it wasn't easy historically something is up...if it was an easy victrry anyway (if there is such a thing) then play from the other side...This game seems to favour the Allies (mainly due to Arty I feel) whereas CotA was more even.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 40
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 4/5/2011 8:01:18 PM   
snowflake


Posts: 6
Joined: 12/14/2010
Status: offline
As i recall, combat mission is about Coy sized forces, maybe Bn sized, but i doubt it. While BFTB models a complete Corps. If you think one AT gun can influence a clash between 2 Corps, your mistaken. Maybe play a game like Call of duty is more to your liking, but i doubt this what you think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 260DET

The point is that a motorised unit or two can arrive arrive undetected at a defended location, apparently, simply because it is dark and the LOS which is the sole means provided to the defences to detect approaching enemy forces has adjusted to the darkness and effectively rendered them blind.


What wil happen to the motorised unit, i presume it is the attacker that is clashing into the line of defence by surprise. The possible outcome can be that the motorised unit is destroyed?

quote:

That is simply unrealistic nonsense. It makes no difference if a game is operational or not, to have creditability all the elements of a game must play realistically, otherwise what is the point?


What is realistic in your opinion might just be humbug to another persons point of view.

quote:

In effect, whether by design or not, this game is biased towards the attacking forces and handicaps and restricts the implementation of defensive choices.


Battles are not won by defence only. Just learn from past mistakes, and act/react in the right manner.

Anyway, here is my take on this game:
defence is easy to try, but difficult to master. But it's not impossible in this game. ANALYSE; discover the errors made in the last game and adjust the strategy and tactics, then try again and learn. Gave me lots of new insights in "command and control" doctrines of armies, aint it cool

Cheers mate, learn by example.

< Message edited by snowflake -- 4/5/2011 8:11:52 PM >

(in reply to 260DET)
Post #: 41
RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... - 4/5/2011 10:51:32 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
As a contrasting opinion - frequently a Corps attack (on limited routes (eg Italy, Ardennes or Holland) has it's timetable (if not success/failure) dictated by the conditions in front of a single strongpoint... for example:

Two StuG, supported by a platoon of Grenadiers could and frequently did stymie a divisional advance for hours if not days. The lead element contacts the first vehicle, and is knocked out, the attack either bogs down immediately, or a flanking approach is tried and falls foul of the second piece. An attempt to rush the position might fail due to support from the MG teams, and supporting armour to close range AT ambushes.

If the local commander is slow identifying the weakness of the supporting position and after being stalled consolidates in front of the strongpoint, then the whole Divisional advance has been halted. Only with the arrival of a superior officer, the recognition that the defensive position is just a blocking position is the position finally flanked effectively, bypassed and eliminated by a more appropriate attack.

Even where the Corps is more dispersed and can advance generally, if many clashes have this 'nature' - then yes, a 'single' AT gun can influence the progress of each element advancing from an entire Corps - it only need be repeated fairly often across the front, and local counterattacks to the flanks of the most successful advances will restore the situation.

That a company position can be 'easily' overrun and not reduced house by house, hedge by hedge, foxhole by foxhole in many ways favours the attacker... Coupled with visibility ranges that almost always exceed the short range weapon ranges for the entire force (eg MP40 and PzFaust/Bazooka, or even Kar98/Garand/LE No4) and this desperate close range fighting is almost entirely absent. A short barrage (often less than 10 minutes) a rush by 'lots' of men and the blocking position is gone... pretty reliably.

(in reply to snowflake)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> The War Room >> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.098