Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: East Front Game

 
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: East Front Game Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: East Front Game - 1/1/2013 11:42:45 PM   
T-28A


Posts: 831
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
As the Soviet commander, you will also have some tough time, albeit for different reasons.
By January 21st, your core striking formation, the Group Rumjantsev (joint forces of two brigades, 39th Tank and 56th Motor Rifle), is already tired and halved in size, all your reserves are already committed and you lack ammo and fuel, while Germans seem to keep bringing fresh units with every hour, sealing all the gaps and blocking your tanks' advance in the narrow streets of Kamensk. If you keep up attacking, as you did in past days, it is very likely that you will lose this battle of attrition.
Your historical counterpart, 23rd Tank Corps CO General Pushkin, anticipating the possible German counterattack, ordered his troops the defensive posture on 11-00, January 21st. You, as the Soviet player, have five hours more than that, use them to plan your defenses more carefully, - or launch the last all-out attack to improve your positions.
This scenario is expected to be quite tough for Soviet side, especially because the only river crossing capable to carry tanks is about 10 km away. So, while your infantry can always retreat across the Donetz by ice, to live and fight another day, your tanks and their crews have the only choice of winning or dying.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by T-28A -- 1/2/2013 7:35:27 AM >


_____________________________

_________________________________________
"Russia has only two allies: Russian Army and Russian Navy".
---Emperor Alexander III

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 91
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 3:18:32 AM   
Bil H


Posts: 1981
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

Are you ever going to improve the graphics of the units? I'd really like to see something like in Panzer General style instead of top down nato counters or those other bland counters.


While I hate the idea of a more stylized Panzer Genereal type icon, I actually think that there is MUCH room for improvement to the counters and have actually tried a couple of times throughout the years to get them updated so they at least look like they were designed in the 21st century. :)

However there are much bigger fish to fry with this engine than the counters so I would rather Dave and Paul spend their time tweaking the high value items that are on Dave's never ending Honey-do list.

Bil

_____________________________

Ah, well, since you do not wish death, then how about a rubber chicken?

Sam the Eagle

My Website:
http://www.bilhardenberger.com

(in reply to Rtwfreak)
Post #: 92
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 8:43:43 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1919
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: online
Looks fascinating. Thanks T-28a. Will it be out this year? I assume not. Next year?

(in reply to Bil H)
Post #: 93
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 11:02:33 AM   
T-28A


Posts: 831
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix
Looks fascinating. Thanks T-28a. Will it be out this year? I assume not. Next year?

This year would be excellent, but I believe it is definitely overoptimistic, so next is the most feasible (I'm talking about myself here, other guys have their own plans and estimates, especially engine-wise).
Anyway, it's a pity it is not done already, as winter 2012/2013 was/is 70th anniversary of the events...

_____________________________

_________________________________________
"Russia has only two allies: Russian Army and Russian Navy".
---Emperor Alexander III

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 94
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 1:58:29 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I suppose the scenarios are still running on the BFTB engine? If so I doubt we will see EF game until summer of 2014.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 95
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 5:56:40 PM   
Bil H


Posts: 1981
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I suppose the scenarios are still running on the BFTB engine? If so I doubt we will see EF game until summer of 2014.


I think it's wrong to label this the BFTB engine.. it is the Command Ops engine. It is the same engine that was used for RDOA, COTA, HTTR, and BFTB.. though it was tweaked and evolved some with each release the base was the same. I doubt you will see major differences for the East Front game or even for LOTB (although if I have my way LOTB could diverge more than any of the others have).

That doesn't mean the game can't handle different theaters because I think it can do that just fine. Including the East Front.

I believe the main hold up for this game is Estabs, maps, and scenario creation. Dave's part is easy.

Bil

_____________________________

Ah, well, since you do not wish death, then how about a rubber chicken?

Sam the Eagle

My Website:
http://www.bilhardenberger.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 96
RE: East Front Game - 1/2/2013 7:48:56 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
What I'm saying Bil is it's still CO BFTB engine i.e not the updated one we will be getting in EF with new features in (no dismounted Inf, no Doctrines etc)..I'm sure evyone knows what I mean plus it's quicker than typing Command Ops..lazy.

Just re reading what you said Bil...I remember Dave saying the engine needed Russian combat doctrines to do the east front right..and also to get dismounted Inf in..so has this changed now? Doesn't the game need Russian doctrines anymore? I'm really confused. If it's just a case of making OOB's and Scenarios surely it would come out as a major expansion rather than a new game in the series? If it's possible to create any theater (which Dave said at one point EF game would need new combat doctrine for the Russians) why would it take to next year to do the OOB's and make scenarios? Surely that could be done in a year or abit more?

What I'm trying to ask is have things changed now and the EF game wont have new features tailored for the theater or other general new features (if not thats some surprising news indeed)?

< Message edited by wodin -- 1/2/2013 9:38:23 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Bil H)
Post #: 97
RE: East Front Game - 1/20/2013 6:55:17 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
With regard to "doctrines", is anything like "overrun", "breakthrough attack", or "sneak attack" considered, particularly for pure armored type formations (tank, or tank + halftracks)?

Currently one needs to completely push aside enemy infantry units in heavy combat, even if the infantry completely lacks any anti armor capabilities.

I don´t mean to let an attacking armored force take measures to find a path around an enemy unit, the more if time is vital and the enemy is sitting at the only good road around. So in these cases an aggressive, bold armor commander would "simply" overrun (or bypass straight THROUGH) this enemy unit and let the cleaning works to some following up units, composed mostly of infantry.

It´s a speciality practiced at high times of Blitzkrieg (1939-42...for germans), but also later for the allies, particularly the russians in the last half of the war.

At the same time, the defending (more or less helpless) infantry, would have to let pass the enemy armor without taking up an effortless fight and instead keep heads down and hold the line to deal with any enemy infantry, that might follow up later.


_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 98
RE: East Front Game - 1/20/2013 10:05:17 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Not sure if thats what Dave means. I know he wanted to look at the Russians with regards to formations and mass attacks etc. Not sure he means specific new attack orders though.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 99
RE: East Front Game - 1/23/2013 4:37:12 PM   
Blackstreet

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/9/2013
Status: offline
I have a question about the new game: will more players be able to participate in Multiplayer mode?

I ask because there are many people out there playing strategic games either using Kriegsspiel type rules, or not, but in any case, playing MP with many players on each side, giving different players different commands (and sometimes, different levels of command), and it seems that the Command Ops series is almost designed for this to make a perfect MP experience with many players on each side. For example, Scourge of War, another grand strategy game, has a very healthy MP community, playing games every evening often with over 10 players per side!

In fact, I would have thought that this is what any MoD contracts would be after in the CO series.

If you were going to do it properly, you'd have a setting for giving players limited intelligence of their own units too.

Just some thoughts.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 100
RE: East Front Game - 1/23/2013 5:47:11 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Blackstreet Dave has expressed that he wants to do that at some point, but I'm not sure it will be for the EF release..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Blackstreet)
Post #: 101
RE: East Front Game - 1/23/2013 10:30:28 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackstreet

I have a question about the new game: will more players be able to participate in Multiplayer mode?

I ask because there are many people out there playing strategic games either using Kriegsspiel type rules, or not, but in any case, playing MP with many players on each side, giving different players different commands (and sometimes, different levels of command), and it seems that the Command Ops series is almost designed for this to make a perfect MP experience with many players on each side. For example, Scourge of War, another grand strategy game, has a very healthy MP community, playing games every evening often with over 10 players per side!

In fact, I would have thought that this is what any MoD contracts would be after in the CO series.

If you were going to do it properly, you'd have a setting for giving players limited intelligence of their own units too.

Just some thoughts.

In fact I was talking with my colleague Paul Scobell last night about this very issue. A couple of weeks back I asked him to look into how we could implement multiple commands. Well if the truth be told, his remit was to advise on how much work would be involved in getting a working test of such a feature.

So our thinking at the moment is that we would do this in two stages. The first being to do a two player version (as we do now) that had multiple commands per side and each command having its own processing thread. Basically dividing the forces up for each side into groups and then each group having its own intel database and processing actions for its forces. This would speed up the game on multi-core systems (and most PCs these days are multi-cores) and allow for bigger scenarios. How big we don't know, hence the purpose of doing a test.

The second stage would then be to develop the networking and UI so that we could have multiple players up to one per command, which is what you are after I believe.

Paul's advice is that there is a lot of work to be done. While we originally allowed for multiple commands we canned actually implementing that back in 1996 when it looked like just being too much work for us to finish with the budget we had. So we have to hive off a fair bit of the code form the Side class into the Command class and solve issues like syncing intel databases, plans and orders between commands that affect the same unit, splitting the action events ( fire, bombard, strike ) into two parts - initiation and resolution - and having multiple commands respond to action events if they each have units affected by the same fire event, comms between commands both reporting and orders etc.

The bottom line is this will be a big job. I am still mulling over whether it is worth giving this priority over other features on our wish list. One factor is that it should enable bigger maps and/or more units. We need more units to simulate realistic mounted ops ( ie mech/mot inf ) and I am worried about the performance hit if we don't implement multiple commands. Another factor is that in doing so we will hold up some other projects. Now if we had planty of money we could do it all. But we don't. Anyway I'm still mulling.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Blackstreet)
Post #: 102
RE: East Front Game - 1/24/2013 12:30:52 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Dave, I know myself and a few others prefer the smaller unit count but over a few days scenarios..I hope the future games don't get bigger and bigger as I'm not sure I'd carry on with the series. As it is BFTB doesn't get as much play it deserves due to the very large unit count scenarios. What happens with these for me anyway is you have to play quite zoomed out and then it ends up just looking like a big chaotic jumble of units, you end up missing out on the refinement of the engine as it becomes to difficult to see it in action i.e watching units shake out into attack will get lost within lots of other units..

I like moderate amount of units but over decent length like two or three days.

I fear going to big the game will loose something..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 103
RE: East Front Game - 1/24/2013 1:27:17 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online
wodin,

There is room for both small and large. There are others who have expressed their desire to play on a bigger canvass rather than just a segement of the operational area. Other's also want to have more realistic mounted operations. This necessiates an increase in the unit count. Either way we need more speed or to use the processing power available better. Multiple commands provides that. But that is not to say that smaller scenarios won't benefit. They will especially with the ability to model more realistic mounted ops and the ability for the game to run through quiet times like at night much faster.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 104
RE: East Front Game - 1/24/2013 2:03:26 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Cool...I want dismounted Inf etc etc. I hope you have a good mix of scenarios in the EF game. Again I'm not too keen on ones that finish in less than two days either, they are over to quick. Three days or more upto division I'm more than happy with. Having a 19inch monitor is a pain to be honest aswell.

I just hope huge scenarios on massive maps doesn't end up like your out of control. I suppose you'd have to start giving orders at an even higher HQ level. I also think if your start going huge maps you need a mini map with the units on it aswell even if they are just dots you will know roughly where to jump to.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 105
RE: East Front Game - 1/24/2013 5:11:15 PM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Cool...I want dismounted Inf etc etc. I hope you have a good mix of scenarios in the EF game. Again I'm not too keen on ones that finish in less than two days either, they are over to quick. Three days or more upto division I'm more than happy with. Having a 19inch monitor is a pain to be honest aswell.

I just hope huge scenarios on massive maps doesn't end up like your out of control. I suppose you'd have to start giving orders at an even higher HQ level. I also think if your start going huge maps you need a mini map with the units on it aswell even if they are just dots you will know roughly where to jump to.


Actually, I am one of the players who likes to play on a bigger canvas, so multiple commands sounds interesting and exciting to me.
I imagine operations involving several corps and some of them are controlled by the AI.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 106
RE: East Front Game - 1/24/2013 9:44:39 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
In my mind's eye I would love to see the game scaled up to Theatre sized maps with multiple commands on each side. That's the only scale on which the player can choose the focus point for attacks and try to pull off genuinely original operations.


If I throw in massive amounts of wishful thinking and demographic hand-waving I can even see a game along the lines of World of Tanks - players get 'ownership' of various formation types which get spawned onto a map along with those of other players in two teams. As you play your formation gains experience and you can bolt-on additional units. Players move up being able to deploy brigades, divisions and corps as they gain currency. Paying customers get 'Hero' units. It would be lovely and totally unrealistic and I'm daydreaming because it'll never happen :(

(in reply to miya)
Post #: 107
RE: East Front Game - 1/25/2013 7:52:37 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Alchenar..one mans meat is another mans poison..I'd hate that.

I'm a great believer bigger isn't always better..I can understand big multiplayer scenarios where you just control a small force within it..or the AI controls some..but huge single player game..to me would be a confusing nightmare..and be to hard to control until it became a clickfest.

< Message edited by wodin -- 1/25/2013 7:54:46 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 108
RE: East Front Game - 1/25/2013 1:58:01 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
The difficulty of programming all the variables of space, time, interoperability, and unit behaviors for larger scenarios aside, the difficulty of handling those could be addressed in terms that military commanders used.

According to his diary during World War II, Patton would not issue orders more than two echelons below his command level in a battle. He viewed his role as addressing the larger tactics / strategy assigned him by his commander and trusting his subordinate commanders to be proficient at the more detailed aspects of carrying out the battle vision within the bounds of their command.

There's enough unit, supply, commander proficiency, and intelligence feedback in Command Ops coupled with the ability to define specific subordinate unit activities and alter the order of battle into task groups to command in that manner.

Whether that's an interesting way for anyone playing the game to address a large operation in Command Ops is a different story.

One time I violate the rule is when my command ventures so far beyond an objective that I no longer get credit for its points in the victory calculations.

I'll break off a subordinate unit from a formation or move a directly assigned support unit to a "defend" position at the objective to address rear area occupation requirements the rules appear to require when FLOT moves beyond the objective's geographic limits.


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 109
RE: East Front Game - 1/25/2013 5:36:31 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I'd need alot more feedback through radio comms or the UI from my units if we get these huge scenarios..so I can at least keep track of what is going on and where..who is in trouble and who isn't etc etc. More radio feedback is something I've waned for awhile now.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 110
RE: East Front Game - 1/25/2013 9:42:01 PM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

The difficulty of programming all the variables of space, time, interoperability, and unit behaviors for larger scenarios aside, the difficulty of handling those could be addressed in terms that military commanders used.

According to his diary during World War II, Patton would not issue orders more than two echelons below his command level in a battle. He viewed his role as addressing the larger tactics / strategy assigned him by his commander and trusting his subordinate commanders to be proficient at the more detailed aspects of carrying out the battle vision within the bounds of their command.

There's enough unit, supply, commander proficiency, and intelligence feedback in Command Ops coupled with the ability to define specific subordinate unit activities and alter the order of battle into task groups to command in that manner.

Whether that's an interesting way for anyone playing the game to address a large operation in Command Ops is a different story.

One time I violate the rule is when my command ventures so far beyond an objective that I no longer get credit for its points in the victory calculations.

I'll break off a subordinate unit from a formation or move a directly assigned support unit to a "defend" position at the objective to address rear area occupation requirements the rules appear to require when FLOT moves beyond the objective's geographic limits.



As Dave in one of the videos said

"trust the AI to do a reasonable job"


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 111
RE: East Front Game - 1/25/2013 10:12:29 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7960
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
The bigger the battle the higher up you give out orders the better the AI needs to be to reduce any micromanagement..not sure the AI (though the best out there) is really upto the task yet. I certainly would be worried if whole divisions where AI controlled only..maybe in a few years from now I'd have full confidence in the AI to manage such a big force.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to miya)
Post #: 112
RE: East Front Game - 1/26/2013 10:39:31 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

The bigger the battle the higher up you give out orders the better the AI needs to be to reduce any micromanagement..not sure the AI (though the best out there) is really upto the task yet. I certainly would be worried if whole divisions where AI controlled only..maybe in a few years from now I'd have full confidence in the AI to manage such a big force.


Yeah that's certainly true.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 113
RE: East Front Game - 1/27/2013 6:24:39 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
Unless someone's playing head to head with a human player, they're playing against the AI.

In that case, the AI is controlling the entire OPFOR to the human-controlled command.

If beating the AI controlling the OPFOR is satisfying, then allowing it to control administrative details of lower echelon units to the Human command ought to be useful to avoid micromanaging.

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 114
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: East Front Game Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.109