Matrix Games

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.

quote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.