Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?

 
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 >> Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/16/2013 2:49:30 PM   
SapperAstro

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Penrith, Australia
Status: offline
I still don't understand the 'Soviet doctrine' module that is listed in the 'CO2 future plans' thread. I thought the Soviets had a number of different doctrines, starting at 'useless' doctrine for 1941 to 'copied' doctrine starting somewhere in late '42.

Why would the Soviets need a seperate doctrine file? And how much work would you hazard to guess is needed to shake it out? Do all the nationalities have their own doctrine currently in game?
Post #: 1
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/16/2013 3:05:27 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Think of mass attacks..lack of comms etc..all this would need to be modeled somehow into the game esp early war. Pointless having the soviets fight just like the Germans. You may aswell just change the counter from German to Russian put in the Russian equip and it's done..they;d fight like Germans in Russian equip. Just wouldn't play right. As the war goes on then yes it would even up but near the start something i.e doctrine needs to be in to make it play right..out numbered Germans fighting and winning, esp in defense, you want to still stand a chance having say a battalion holding off a regiment or two on attack.

The Russians more so than any of the other major players do need abit of special work as I said esp early war.

This is another area where I think commander stats at present don't have enough influence on how the game plays out. I think low stat commanders and your coy's have trouble shaking out into formation..may attack piecemeal or frontal only etc etc. Where as the high stat commanders the coy's should perform really well..and the highest stat commanders the units they are in charge of should perform amazingly well..also I think the battalion commander stats should have the biggest impact. Coy commanders depending on their situation depends on how important the commander stats are. This is how you'd get something similar to Arnhem with John frost in charge coy's hold on alot longer than if you had a poor or OK commander. The commander stats in game could be the key to really giving the units personality and add o realism.

Dismounts and doctrine are for me the most important features required in the next game of the series.

< Message edited by wodin -- 8/16/2013 3:12:31 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to SapperAstro)
Post #: 2
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/16/2013 8:58:05 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2263
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
Judging by what I've read and by the casualty rates, Russians should have 0-25% training and most of their commanders should have skills well below 50%.

_____________________________

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 wodin)
Post #: 3
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/17/2013 8:01:18 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
The game currently gives the commander the chance to give orders more efficiently than real life commanders, as you always know precisely where your units are. You also have more time to calculate a reasonable orders delay when giving new orders. Those things are less problematic for company level operations for armies with plenty of radios or a strong focus on smart independent actions and flexibility, both things the Soviets lacked at this scale.

The response times of artillery might also need to be adjusted, as for me one of the main shortcomings in the game is that nothing prevents the player or AI from ordering every single artillery unit within range to fire on the same target. Though this did occur from time to time, it seems more common in the game than what the literature suggests. For the Soviets, with most of the artillery centralized at army level or in separate divisions, such flexibility would be unthinkable.

I'm guessing much longer order delays, more reorganization, some sort of penalty for artillery fire after the initial barrage/a certain time period, mediocre unit quality and commanders and less flexible mobile units could be a part of Soviet doctrine. Due to the scale, a "Schwerpunkt" attack will nearly always work better than a front-wide attack as you have only a limited amount of time to achieve objectives.

The Soviet deep battle theory would be a limited factor on the current map sizes, but they might be on larger maps. If the game mostly covers mid-war operations, Soviet operational flexibility is primitive to begin with and mobile units would still be fairly weak, not to mention that cavalry-mechanized groups would be missing, as well as the light tank destroyers in the quantities the infantry needs to make good use of them.

A 1942-1943 Soviet doctrine is interesting as the Soviets would slowly be moving towards more efficient operations and towards being able to launch large scale offensives with both mobile units and infantry, instead of the infantry-heavy attacks earlier in the war (such as the winter counteroffensive in 1941-1942, where the Soviets had a limited number of tanks compared to later in the war due to losses and factories moving to the Urals).

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 8/17/2013 8:20:36 AM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 4
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/17/2013 12:05:21 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The game currently gives the commander the chance to give orders more efficiently than real life commanders, as you always know precisely where your units are. You also have more time to calculate a reasonable orders delay when giving new orders. Those things are less problematic for company level operations for armies with plenty of radios or a strong focus on smart independent actions and flexibility, both things the Soviets lacked at this scale.





Maybe there is a case for this then..Lets say in game a Commander with low stats means the order delay should be variable..i.e the delay time given is the best he would do..but it could be worse and take longer..the worse the commander stats the more chance it will take longer and the extra time could be greater. This would be done randomly with an odds chance mechanic. Also as I said I'd like the commanders have alot more influence in how the units fight..from poor\loose formations, late attacks, piece meal attacks etc..the better the Stats the better they fight with noticeable less moral drop..noticeable lack of cohesion loss...better at timing attacks (I.e a great brigade\regiment commander will time the attacks of his battalions perfectly during attack...a noticeable effect on keeping their ground etc etc.

Talking about that I still find retreat annoying. A dug in coy with max losses set that I wanted to hold on as long as possible to stop an allied push retreated after 4 casualties. It's extremely hard to defend at times. I doubt this will ever really be changed and is just something you have to deal with with this particular game.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 5
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/18/2013 12:48:12 PM   
SapperAstro

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Penrith, Australia
Status: offline
From what I have seen in this thread, surely the Western Allies, particularly the French, have to have their own '1940' doctrine? Otherwise, as stated, the same business occurs where you have both sides doing the same thing in the 'Blitzkrieg' addon?

As for the Commander ratings; I thought all of these factors were already attributed (lower defence, slower reaction, lower morale, quicker to break, etc). That is where I believe many of the Russian (in)abilities early war can already be in place. If we were talking about the Japanese, I perhaps could understand the necessity of some type of 'Banzai' assault bonus to morale and fatigue in the short term with higher casualties, etc.

I don't know. I am still not convinced by the argument as put. I understand what you guys are saying, but believe this can already be taken care of by individual settings for each unit when making a scenario.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 6
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/18/2013 8:08:34 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Sapper the issue I have is the commander stats don't appear make any real significant difference...It needs to have a much bigger effect. Dave was the one who first mentioned doctrine was needed...e knows the game mechanics better than anyone..so if he thinks it's needed..it's needed.


< Message edited by wodin -- 8/18/2013 8:09:47 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to SapperAstro)
Post #: 7
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 1:57:38 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online
Good discussion guys. Sorry for not responding earlier but I have been preoccupied elsewhere at the moment.

The doctrinal differences between the Allied and Axis forces were most pronounced in the earlier part of the war where British and French armoured warfare doctrine lagged behind the German use of combined arms. By late 1944 all Western Allied forces had embraced the combined arms approach. The Brits were the last to make the change. It took the disaster of Op Goodwood in the Normandy battles to finally shift them.

The Soviets, however, had embraced combined arms early but had adopted a different approach to conducting offensive operations. They did so primarily because of the limitations within their own forces. Lack of effective radio control meant they were more fixed in terms of assigning objectives and phase lines. They lacked the means to react and reassess dynamically as the battle unfolded. This is what led to the decapitation and defeat in detail of their offensive forces post Stalingrad. With our current engine the Soviets would be able to reassess more quickly and thus avoid the headlong rush by their Tank Corps which so often left them vulnerable to encirclement and hence destruction. So reducing the abilities of Soviets forces to reassess plans is pretty essential in my book.

Further, the Soviet attack doctrine relied heavily on prepared bombardments. They just did not have the means to flexibly allocate arty on the fly as the battle progressed. So we need to reduce their ability to request and provide on call support and to add in a new prep bombard task within the attack.

Also they would often attack in ledge formation, either ledge left or right. For a Bn of three companies this would see two companies up front in line with the third company directly behind either the forward left or forward right companies. So we need to model these formations.

The use of Soviet cavalry formations also needs to be modelled. We currently do not have any dedicated doctrine for modelling the use of cavalry.
Furhter

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 8
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 11:28:19 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
That's really why I'm looking forwards to the Eastern Front. You have asymmetric operational styles, one side with vast resources but which can only be 'spent' once and the other side with all too few resources but the co-ordination and leadership to react to the changing situation.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 9
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 1:46:12 PM   
SapperAstro

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Penrith, Australia
Status: offline
Thanks Arjuna,

Couldn't the Soviets be given an intrinsic severe orders delay? And this lessens over time on a sliding scale?

As for the bombardments, this could be done by giving them the lions share of their artillery strikes straight away with a timer given to 'use or lose'.

The other two points certainly are beyond me. I am guessing the engine has pre coded 'formations' for different actions and these match up with the German/WA side of the ledger, while the Russian system is not coded in? Would the Russian system ever 'match up' with the pre existing formations currently in game as the war progressed?

So in regards to the French 1940 battles, how will this be implemented? I guess the French, British, Belgians, Dutch, whoever else is involved will be given a similar orders delay? Or will this just fall to lower stats/morale/etc to give the same effect?

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 10
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 2:46:10 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online
The early war Brit armoured doctrine saw armour and inf operating more less separately. Their thinking was more an evolution of cavalry tactics rather than a comb9ned arms approach. This was reflected both in their structure with separate armoured and inf Bde's within the armoured division. Now the Germans in theory did likewise but in practice they cross attached, creating mixed KGs of armour and inf. The Yanks too initially did not cross attach but they learnt more quickly than the Brits and began cross attaching in 1943. This eventually saw them change the structure of their armoured divisions to the 44 standard with three combat commands each comprising one armour, one inf and one SP arty Bn.

What we really need is some logic that will govern the cross attachment when allocating forces sop that it comp[lies with national doctrine.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SapperAstro)
Post #: 11
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 2:50:51 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Sapper why are you opposed to this? Not sure why you don't think it should be done. Is it because you thinking along the lines of egtting the eF game out quicker? Personally I'd rather wait and have these features in game. I have no issue with Daves plans here and certainly wouldn't want him to bypass it.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 12
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/19/2013 5:09:21 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 559
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Sapper why are you opposed to this? Not sure why you don't think it should be done. Is it because you thinking along the lines of egtting the eF game out quicker? Personally I'd rather wait and have these features in game. I have no issue with Daves plans here and certainly wouldn't want him to bypass it.


I believe he's thinking out loud.

Doctrinal differences can be portrayed as measurable attributes inside unit effectiveness / health, organization, formation, and command span, and commander strengths at baseline Estab.

They also affect equipment capabilities / distribution, and supply, which are better reflected in the service, formation, or unit design.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 13
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/20/2013 10:52:14 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Honestly I think that the 'commander strengths' and similar stats should really be thrown under the hood in future. I don't need to know how 'reliable' or 'aggressive' an officer is and I've never looked because it is never going to matter. The nature of the scenario size and scopes mean that if I need to make an attack then I need to make an attack, and I need to use what the scenario gives me.

I'd love to know where people have really looked hard at a unit's experience/officer stats etc because as far as I'm concerned all of that could really be put under the covers and replaced in the UI with a simple 'combat efficency' style stat.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 14
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/20/2013 1:54:02 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 559
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Honestly I think that the 'commander strengths' and similar stats should really be thrown under the hood in future. I don't need to know how 'reliable' or 'aggressive' an officer is and I've never looked because it is never going to matter. The nature of the scenario size and scopes mean that if I need to make an attack then I need to make an attack, and I need to use what the scenario gives me.

I'd love to know where people have really looked hard at a unit's experience/officer stats etc because as far as I'm concerned all of that could really be put under the covers and replaced in the UI with a simple 'combat efficency' style stat.


Much of whether those data are useful depends on how one wants to handle control of forces and whether the scenario designer decided to go deep into the mechanics to model what occurred historically.

Since many battles turn on individual commander initiative, it's nice the AI considers commander attributes for control of a unit / force.

Bulge would be pretty boring if Peiper and Skorzeny didn't receive the special attributes necessary to lead their battle groups.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 15
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/20/2013 4:50:34 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 16
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/20/2013 4:56:56 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 559
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.


Consider that it offers you choices.

Some players want more choices than others.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 17
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/20/2013 9:56:08 PM   
Alchenar

 

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

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.


Consider that it offers you choices.

Some players want more choices than others.



It doesn't offer choices though? When has it ever offered you a choice?

In any of the game scenarios you have to make do with what you are given. Oh, my battalion commander lacks aggression? Tough. There's nobody else and I need that objective so off you go.

What would actually be useful from a user perspective is something similar to that which Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (surely we've all played that) did at the start of the scenario: "This is your best brigade" "These are veteran troops" etc etc.

When the stats aren't going to change over the course of the scenario and everything is pre-set, don't make me dig through tab after tab of raw stats to work out what my units are like, give me a quick 'these are elite shock troops' 'these guys are green and will run if someone sneezes at them' 'these guys are good but their CO tends to **** up'.


e: this is a complexity vs depth pit that many wargames fall into. It's like when WitE rolls for every rifle squad in a corps v corps combat when all that really matters is that one side's CV is twice the other's. Complexity is all well and good, but if it isn't actually adding any depth then it should in general be tucked away where it can't disturb the player from the choices they actually have

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 8/20/2013 9:59:01 PM >

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 18
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/21/2013 12:33:59 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online
Would it help if the Unit training and experience levels could be displayed in the unit info box like morale and fatigue are now?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 19
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/21/2013 10:45:54 AM   
Alchenar

 

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

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Would it help if the Unit training and experience levels could be displayed in the unit info box like morale and fatigue are now?


I'll have a think about it and get back to you (it's one of those things where I can see the problem quite clearly but the solution could be any number of things).

Does the game take into account training+exp when calculating the combat power value? Because that's really the default 'at a glance how powerful is this unit' stat.

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 8/21/2013 10:46:48 AM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 20
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/21/2013 11:27:01 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online
Yes it does.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 21
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/21/2013 11:17:25 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
See maybe some other people can chime in, but when I'm playing 90% of the time I check just 3 things:
1) AArm and AP ranges (what can this fight and where)
2) Combat Power (3 and 4 is good for attacks, a 2 is a defender and a 1 stays away from combat if possible)
3) Fatigue (would these guys be better if they had a rest)

Those three stats basically determine what orders I'm giving out.
If I was to pick a 4th thing that I could easily see at a glance at the same time as all the others it would be this:

4) Minutes of combat ammunition remaining.

The stats for ROF and current stockpiles are right there in the game were I to get a pad of paper out and do the maths, but really it would be nice for the game to do this for me. I know about the supply overlay, but having Combat Power up by default is far more useful and it manages to actually be less hassle to switch to the supply tab and eyeball the ammo count directly. It's less of a problem now that infantry companies don't all run out of rifle ammo by 10am each day, but what I think would be useful in the unit info saying to some degree of accuracy saying 'at the current rate in about 30 minutes we're all about to start making emergency supply requests'.

Where that's useful and I think would encourage people to play 'better' is that it serves as an active reminder to the player (rather than an abstract or after-the-fact one) 'hey, you need to keep your supply line secure or this assault is going to collapse'. Because I certainly have a habit of pushing too hard and too far and then finding a wandering enemy company is sitting a couple of miles back up the road my lead elements have disappeared down.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 22
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/22/2013 12:38:53 AM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 559
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


It doesn't offer choices though? When has it ever offered you a choice?

In any of the game scenarios you have to make do with what you are given. Oh, my battalion commander lacks aggression? Tough. There's nobody else and I need that objective so off you go.

What would actually be useful from a user perspective is something similar to that which Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (surely we've all played that) did at the start of the scenario: "This is your best brigade" "These are veteran troops" etc etc.

When the stats aren't going to change over the course of the scenario and everything is pre-set, don't make me dig through tab after tab of raw stats to work out what my units are like, give me a quick 'these are elite shock troops' 'these guys are green and will run if someone sneezes at them' 'these guys are good but their CO tends to **** up'.


e: this is a complexity vs depth pit that many wargames fall into. It's like when WitE rolls for every rifle squad in a corps v corps combat when all that really matters is that one side's CV is twice the other's. Complexity is all well and good, but if it isn't actually adding any depth then it should in general be tucked away where it can't disturb the player from the choices they actually have


Perhaps choices is a poor word.

It offers data to make an informed decision.

Hitler was loath to consider that data.

Based on his ultimate success, I choose to avoid Hitler's methods.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 23
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/22/2013 5:07:38 AM   
Gerry

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 3/24/2003
Status: offline
I have not read that much military history but I am currently reading "Decision in the Ukraine" by Nipe. I was amazed by some of the content. The Soviets produced an incredible number of tanks and lost them quickly. They could replace the tanks but not the tankers. Also someone could find himself in a tank just because he could drive a vehicle, e.g. a farmer. Also the tactics and orders had to be very simple for them to follow given their lack of training.

During the attack by Russian armor at Prokorovka they closed with the SS divisions to negate the German advantage in optics and main armament. Any that survived kept on driving through the German lines. Their commander couldn't communicate with them and they couldn't communicate with each other so they were riding blind in a way. They weren't able to react to the changing situation. Such a dramatic difference in capabilities at that time. Fascinating. Also for any game system that takes on this challenge.

Gerry


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Good discussion guys. Sorry for not responding earlier but I have been preoccupied elsewhere at the moment.

The doctrinal differences between the Allied and Axis forces were most pronounced in the earlier part of the war where British and French armoured warfare doctrine lagged behind the German use of combined arms. By late 1944 all Western Allied forces had embraced the combined arms approach. The Brits were the last to make the change. It took the disaster of Op Goodwood in the Normandy battles to finally shift them.

The Soviets, however, had embraced combined arms early but had adopted a different approach to conducting offensive operations. They did so primarily because of the limitations within their own forces. Lack of effective radio control meant they were more fixed in terms of assigning objectives and phase lines. They lacked the means to react and reassess dynamically as the battle unfolded. This is what led to the decapitation and defeat in detail of their offensive forces post Stalingrad. With our current engine the Soviets would be able to reassess more quickly and thus avoid the headlong rush by their Tank Corps which so often left them vulnerable to encirclement and hence destruction. So reducing the abilities of Soviets forces to reassess plans is pretty essential in my book.

Further, the Soviet attack doctrine relied heavily on prepared bombardments. They just did not have the means to flexibly allocate arty on the fly as the battle progressed. So we need to reduce their ability to request and provide on call support and to add in a new prep bombard task within the attack.

Also they would often attack in ledge formation, either ledge left or right. For a Bn of three companies this would see two companies up front in line with the third company directly behind either the forward left or forward right companies. So we need to model these formations.

The use of Soviet cavalry formations also needs to be modelled. We currently do not have any dedicated doctrine for modelling the use of cavalry.
Furhter


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 24
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/22/2013 10:14:21 AM   
Alchenar

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Perhaps choices is a poor word.

It offers data to make an informed decision.

Hitler was loath to consider that data.

Based on his ultimate success, I choose to avoid Hitler's methods.


Ironically by focussing on minutiae data that's only tangentially relevant to the choices you are making you are using precisely Hitler's methods.

Hitler was the guy who would try to issue orders based on the rate of fire and effective range of a Tiger tank, while everyone else would try to persuade him that it didn't matter because the unit in question was at 40% strength, in a blizzard, and hadn't slept in three days.

There's information that sets you up to make informed choices and there's information that's interesting but ultimately distracting from the task in hand. I wouldn't say that it's problematic in Command Ops (hell, it's better than 99% of wargames), but there's certainly room for improvement in distinguishing between the two and pushing the former into the foreground.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 25
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/23/2013 12:12:54 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Hell, the fact that it took so very long for someone to notice "Oh, infantry companies shoot through all their rifle ammo by 10am every day, this has obvious consequences for the pacing of all combat in the game" indicates that supply is something that the UI needs to display differently in some way.

Even if it was just a bar in the unit info box that showed a weighted percent of ammo supply to the most prevalent weapons in the unit.

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 8/23/2013 12:14:06 PM >

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 26
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/23/2013 9:19:06 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2263
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Hell, the fact that it took so very long for someone to notice "Oh, infantry companies shoot through all their rifle ammo by 10am every day, this has obvious consequences for the pacing of all combat in the game" indicates that supply is something that the UI needs to display differently in some way.

Even if it was just a bar in the unit info box that showed a weighted percent of ammo supply to the most prevalent weapons in the unit.

Have you tried using F7?

_____________________________

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 Alchenar)
Post #: 27
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/24/2013 3:09:42 PM   
Alchenar

 

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

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Hell, the fact that it took so very long for someone to notice "Oh, infantry companies shoot through all their rifle ammo by 10am every day, this has obvious consequences for the pacing of all combat in the game" indicates that supply is something that the UI needs to display differently in some way.

Even if it was just a bar in the unit info box that showed a weighted percent of ammo supply to the most prevalent weapons in the unit.

Have you tried using F7?


Yes, but there are a couple of issues which make that suboptimal.

Firstly if I have to push a button or click something to get supply information, then I'm better off just clicking on E&S to get the more detailed breakdown. Given that by far the most useful default is F4 it's best to find a solution that works in useful information around that.

Secondly, while supply as an absolute is good to know, what's significantly more useful is supply as a proportion of consumption, because as I wrote earlier, that indicates to the player just how crucial it is that they don't let anything disrupt their supply lines (either by a roving enemy unit, or relocating the base). Given that the information on overall supply and consumption is in the game already it would be helpful for the game to do that rough calculation for me.

It's a bit like the movement tools. Given that the game will tell me how long a unit will take to move from A to B using a certain order if I use the tool, it makes no sense that it won't tell me by default when I'm issuing a move order and way-points.


e: I suppose I should just add that I agree entirely with this quote from a Greece review:

quote:

The fluid, lifelike war depicted in Command Ops is accessed through one of the best interfaces to ever grace a war simulation. The menus, buttons, icons and tabs of the interface are easy to understand and use. There is no user operation (i.e. issuing an order or retrieving some data) that would require more than 3 or 4 clicks on the interface. In addition to this, the physical strain of moving every single counter in the map is absent if the player lets himself to issue orders to headquarters instead of micromanaging every single company or tank platoon.


When I say the UI could be better I mean that there are a few quality of life quibbles that could be addressed (which is true for any game always).

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 8/24/2013 3:27:38 PM >

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 28
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? - 8/25/2013 1:11:39 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1249
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Could you take a look at this please Alchenar.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3284568&mpage=2

I'd particularly like you to take a look at the top bar, and give any feedback you think necessary to improve it, then I can edit it into the concept design.

Thanks, Daz

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'? Page: [1]
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

0.117