Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy Mega Pack releases on SteamDeal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Questionnaire

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Coming Soon and In Development] >> Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!) >> Questionnaire Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Questionnaire - 5/2/2003 5:21:23 AM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

I'm sorry to intrude but it would be very helpful if you'll answer several questions. I swear I shall not ask "what was Hitler's real name" etc. You've already learned a bit about Battlefields system and surely have some feelings of how it would look and taste like. It is obvious that the scenario design was always connected with the feedback problem - any designer always have his supporters and his opponents. But all of us could remember both brilliant scenarios supported by everybody, and a total mess disliked by anyone. Both types could be found at any game. So, please, get the work easier with expressing the feedback. Feel free to point to several variants if you can't pick a single one.

First, a handful of general questions.

1) You're generally prefer scenarios devoted to:
a) Eastern Front
b) Western European Front
c) North Africa
d) Pacific Theater
e) Your own variant

2) You're generally prefer scenarios dealing with
a) 1939-1940
b) 1941-1942
c) 1942-1943
d) 1944-1945
e) Your own variant

3) You're generally prefer to play
a) Allies
b) Axis
c) Western Allies
d) Soviet Union
e) Germany
f) Your own variant

4) You're generally prefer to play
a) Huge and long scenarios
b) Huge but with the balanced duration
c) Medium scenarios
d) Small scale is the best
f) Your own variant

5) YOu're prefer to play:
a) Against AI - it is not cheating at least
b) Against Human but not in teams
c) Against Humans in teams
f) Your own variant

The Battlefields have a brand-new feature for team-play. I suppose Erik will describe it much better than me, so lets just say you can recruit several players, split and subordinate your forces so that players will command only their units. Finally you're able to share existing troops and reinforcements between these players and yourself in order to fulfil your operational plan the best. Here are several questions about it.

6) Battlefields version for command play:
a) I think it is great
b) Well, it could be useful sometimes
c) I don't need it
d) Your own variant

7) You have (or would like to find)
a) Many wargamer friends who would like to play hugest scenarios in teams
b) Several wargamer friends who would like to play medium scenarios in teams
c) No, I don't know any such peoples
d) Your own variant

Finally, some question about the scenarios themselves.

8) You prefer scenarios
a) With alot of armour and mobile troops
b) With amphib or air landings
c) No specific combat types preferred
d) Your own variant

9) You prefer scenarios
a) With thoroughly researched and detailed maps
b) Good maps are good, but I'm not grognard
c) Map is a secondary thing
d) YOur own variant

10) You prefer scenarios
a) With detailed and exact unit list
b) Details are good but it is not a problem
c) It is good enough if all the divisions are named correctly
d) Your own variant

11) Event engine
a) Is crucial to feel the flavour of the battle
b) Events are important to understand what's happening around
c) I never check these news strings
d) Your own variant

12) I want to have Battlefields scenarios
a) Covering all possible scales and battle styles
b) Covering medium and balanced battles mostly
c) Your own variant

Hope that someone will be interested to answer these questions and feel free to express any parting wishes you have for a Battlefields designer.

Best regards
Post #: 1
Re: Questionnaire - 5/2/2003 7:43:24 AM   
Tbone3336

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 11/26/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
1) C) North Africa
2) C) 1942-1943
3) B) Axis
4) C) Medium
5) A) Against AI
6) Not sure yet, Depends on how it is implemented
7) Given answer 6 being agreeable then: b) Several wargamer friends who would like to play medium scenarios in teams.
8) A) With alot of armour and mobile troops
9) A) With thoroughly researched and detailed maps
10) A) With detailed and exact unit list
11) -If the events affect my forces or objectives then very important.
12) B) Covering medium and balanced battles mostly

_____________________________

We aim to please, unless there is a clear headshot.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 2
Re: Re: Questionnaire - 5/2/2003 1:14:11 PM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Ok, thanks.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 3
answers - 5/4/2003 7:05:42 AM   
gionpeters

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 10/28/2001
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
1)B
2)D
3)B
4)A
5)B or C
6)A
7)A
8)C
9)A
10)A
11)B
12)A

Make team scenarios covering the ENTIRE 1944-45 western campaign ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ! i WANT more !

Mad Dog

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 4
Re: answers - 5/4/2003 12:29:07 PM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Pretty convincing :) Thanks for answers.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 5
- 5/4/2003 10:12:15 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
Hello,

1. A & B
2. C & D
3. E
4. A
5. B & C
6. A (I think the ease with which this tool makes multiplayer games possible is a huge step forward for PBEM).
7. B
8. A
9. A
10. A
11. B
12. A

I look forward to getting hold of the scenario design tool myself. I would like to see bigger scenarios. More room to manoeuvre gives (IMHO) more alternate strategies for peope to pursue. Although I understand the maximum map size will be around 100 KM (presumably 100 X 100) that's still ample to do some large self contained battles like Alamein, a large chunk of Crete, either wing of the offensive at Kursk etc. These would all fit into maps this size or smaller. The scale of 1KM, in addition, will also allow more detailed treatments of old favourites like Stalingrad and Kharkov. Much of the Pacific campaigns was fought on battlefields that would fit well here. as well. Can you tell I'm looking forward to this?

Cheers,
IronDuke.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 6
- 5/4/2003 10:29:33 PM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Iron Duke,
Then I have a good news for you. Maximal map size is 250x250, it is possible to create quite large ones. And there are several really big scenarios being prepared. Hope you'll like them as they seem to fit "large & lot of armour" description.
Thanks for your answers,
All the best

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 7
- 5/4/2003 11:05:52 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
T28A,
I'm assuming the scale is still 1 Hex per 1 KM? If so, then that is good news. Some of these scenarios should be massive if you're going to be fighting across distances like that at Battalion level.
Thanks for the info. 250KM is about 155 miles I think, so there's going to be lots of room to manouevre in and fight over.

Please hurry up. :)

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 8
- 5/5/2003 8:32:57 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
1) generally prefer
F) Italy no one does it enough.

2) generally prefer
a) 1940 if in France no one does it enough

3) generally prefer
f) All, I don't have a fav side.

4) generally prefer
c) Medium
d) Small

5) generally prefer
a) Against AI - it is not cheating at least
b) Against Human but not in teams
c) Against Humans in teams
f) I would like to have access to all

6) Battlefields version for command play:
b) Well, it could be useful sometimes

7) You have (or would like to find)
d) wargamers are like girlfriends, you don't get to plan having access to one that easy.

Finally, some question about the scenarios themselves.

8) prefer scenarios
d) as long as it is a well thought out scenario I will like it

9) prefer scenarios
d) I prefer it to look like a serious wargame, so that means credible. Polish is just polish, it doesn't make the game better.

10) You prefer scenarios
d) accuracy is its own reward, if your game is full of inaccuracies it will not get played long.

11) Event engine
d) flavour is flavour, to much is as bad as too little

12) I want to have Battlefields scenarios
a) Covering all possible scales and battle styles
This is a repeat of 4) I think.

I hope my input helped some.
I play The Operational Art of War because I want the detail, just like I play Panzer General because sometimes all I want is fun.
I play Strategic Command because sometimes 3d real time misses the point, occasionally a game need only look like a humble board game with a computer running it.

Battlefields will satisfy me if it appeals to me as a wargamer. Wargamers like accuracy and detail just as much as they like simple and fun.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 9
- 5/5/2003 10:43:42 PM   
Keke


Posts: 3515
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]d) wargamers are like girlfriends, you don't get to plan having access to one that easy.[/B][/QUOTE]

LOL!

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 10
- 5/6/2003 2:00:54 PM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4006
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
1. You're generally prefer scenarios devoted to:

Somewhere new


2. You're generally prefer scenarios dealing with

A date not commonly wargamed


3. You're generally prefer to play:

One side and then the other side


4. You generally prefer to play

Huge and long scenarios – against the AI
Medium length scenarios – by PBEM



5. You prefer to play:

-Against AI - sometimes
-Against Humans for a real challenge


6. Battlefields version for command play:

-Against Humans in teams would be great – but realistically to get a few people to stick out along campaign would be difficult.


Instead this feature might:
1. only be included in the medium and short scenarios or
2. allow all the players on one team to aces the passwords of their team mates or
3. if somebody drops out allow the AI to take over that role.




7. You have (or would like to find)

Several wargamer friends who would like to play medium scenarios in teams



8. You prefer scenarios

With more infantry rather than less



9. You prefer scenarios

The map must look and feel authentic.
They must have good artwork.
They don’t have to be historically accurate unless it is especially important



10. You prefer scenarios

Details are good but it is not a problem

When wargamers argue over whether such and such a AT gun could penetrate this variant of tank under these circumstances really bugs me. Sometimes they did and sometimes not. More details creates more arguments. UV has a million details and somebody has stopped playing the game because “pilot fatigue is wrong”.


11. Event engine

Must be unpredictable. If its predictable its boring.



12. I want to have Battlefields scenarios

1 Company per counter and a hex size of 100 meters

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 11
- 5/8/2003 5:04:36 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2186
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline
1) b
2) d
3) c
4) a
5) b,c
6) a
7) a
8) c - variety of scenarios and force compositions is best
9) a
10)a
11)a
12)b

Really look forward to the team play.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 12
- 5/16/2003 10:25:21 PM   
Paul Wykes

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 3/4/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
Hello, here are my responses.


1- b & d
2-no preference
3-no preference
4 c & d
5-a & b and interested in c
6- b
7-b
8-c
9-b
10-b
11-a & b
12-b

Hope no one minds me responding. Whilst I may not know too much about Battlefields, I hope this helps.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 13
Replies - 5/16/2003 10:50:51 PM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for all your answers.

Best regards

PS If anybody else would like to express his opinions too, he's still welcome to write them down.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 14
Re: Questionnaire - 5/17/2003 8:40:25 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
My answers are preceded with >

1) You're generally prefer scenarios devoted to:
a) Eastern Front
b) Western European Front
c) North Africa
d) Pacific Theater
e) Your own variant

> A and C

2) You're generally prefer scenarios dealing with
a) 1939-1940
b) 1941-1942
c) 1942-1943
d) 1944-1945
e) Your own variant

> Any year(s)

3) You're generally prefer to play
a) Allies
b) Axis
c) Western Allies
d) Soviet Union
e) Germany
f) Your own variant

> Side that historically lost, usually Axis (and mostly Germany)

4) You're generally prefer to play
a) Huge and long scenarios
b) Huge but with the balanced duration
c) Medium scenarios
d) Small scale is the best
f) Your own variant

> B

5) YOu're prefer to play:
a) Against AI - it is not cheating at least
b) Against Human but not in teams
c) Against Humans in teams
f) Your own variant

> B - one on one

6) Battlefields version for command play:
a) I think it is great
b) Well, it could be useful sometimes
c) I don't need it
d) Your own variant

> C - don't need it at all (it is my personal opinion you are just wasting your energy, time nad resources developing this feature - even if most of the players say they love the idea - they won't play it in reality when the game is released - IMO)

7) You have (or would like to find)
a) Many wargamer friends who would like to play hugest scenarios in teams
b) Several wargamer friends who would like to play medium scenarios in teams
c) No, I don't know any such peoples
d) Your own variant

> I know many wargamers, but most of them are not interested in the team play as described here.

Finally, some question about the scenarios themselves.

8) You prefer scenarios
a) With alot of armour and mobile troops
b) With amphib or air landings
c) No specific combat types preferred
d) Your own variant

> C

9) You prefer scenarios
a) With thoroughly researched and detailed maps
b) Good maps are good, but I'm not grognard
c) Map is a secondary thing
d) YOur own variant

> A

10) You prefer scenarios
a) With detailed and exact unit list
b) Details are good but it is not a problem
c) It is good enough if all the divisions are named correctly
d) Your own variant

> A

11) Event engine
a) Is crucial to feel the flavour of the battle
b) Events are important to understand what's happening around
c) I never check these news strings
d) Your own variant

> A

12) I want to have Battlefields scenarios
a) Covering all possible scales and battle styles
b) Covering medium and balanced battles mostly
c) Your own variant

> A

BTW, T28A, are you Oleg W. from Odessa?

O.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 15
Reply - 5/17/2003 11:17:01 AM   
T-28A


Posts: 829
Joined: 11/1/2002
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
Oleg,

Thanks for reply. As to your question - nope, though I have a pleasure to know him, and coopearate in some way.

Best regards,
Pavel

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 16
- 5/27/2003 4:44:58 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13409
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
1) A
2) E (prefer a mix spanning years to see technology)
3) B
4) F (A & C)
5) F (A & C)
6) B
7) C
8) C (a nice mix would be great)
9) B (map variations to suit the game engine is fine)
10) B (as long as units make sense - ie: Tigers eat Stuarts)
11) B
12) A

Please please please include Market Garden! You just gotta have it! In both V4V & CC/2, it is by far the one of the best campaigns that has a complete mix of everything.

I always loved the fact that V4V's rules allowed you to negate the effects of armor on battles, no other game since that I have seen ever figured out a way of doing this right. It was great the way the whole operation was broken into parts (areas) or you could play the whole thing. Thats what I'd like to see from a scale standpoint. Major operations (multi-day) or a scaled down version (for a quicky - 2-3 hours).

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 17
- 6/2/2003 1:19:27 PM   
geozero


Posts: 1794
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Whether someone designs Market Garden or not, I will be making one for Battleline.

I have a complete OOB for this campaign, as well as extensive maps (some vintage) of the entire area.

I have played this game in V4V and in CC, as well as TOAW.

It is a magnificent set piece battle.

I can't wait to design this baby!


Also, my design list (battles I intend to design) is as follows:

1) The battle for Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland.

2) Battle for Singapore (Japs invade in 1941)

3) The attack on Wake Island.

4) Invasion of Hawaii - a what of scenario

5) Several battle in China and SE Asia

6) Invasion of Norway - probable 2 separate battles (north and south Norway)

7) Attack on Crete

8) Attack on Malta

9) Attack on Gibraltar

10) Several Spanish Civil War battles

11) Invasion of Sicily

12) Several Italian campaigns.


That's what I'd like to design. Some are lesser known or popular battles - but hey, how many D-Day battles are you going to play??????

_____________________________

"I keep re-inventing myself"

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 18
Response... - 6/3/2003 9:29:43 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32565
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
Geozero,

Heck of a list there!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geozero
[B]Whether someone designs Market Garden or not, I will be making one for Battleline.

I have a complete OOB for this campaign, as well as extensive maps (some vintage) of the entire area.

I have played this game in V4V and in CC, as well as TOAW.

It is a magnificent set piece battle.

I can't wait to design this baby!

We don't have the entire Market Garden campaign as a planned scenario, but we do have Trey Marshall working on the drive through Eindhoven and up to Nijmegen, covering everything but Arnhem. Basically "Hell's Highway".

quote:


1) The battle for Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland.

2) Battle for Singapore (Japs invade in 1941)

3) The attack on Wake Island.


I'd be concerned that Wake would be too small to really get into it. Remember 1 hex = 1 km. Wake works well as a SPWAW scenario, IMHO.

quote:

4) Invasion of Hawaii - a what of scenario

5) Several battle in China and SE Asia

6) Invasion of Norway - probable 2 separate battles (north and south Norway)

7) Attack on Crete

8) Attack on Malta

9) Attack on Gibraltar

10) Several Spanish Civil War battles

11) Invasion of Sicily

12) Several Italian campaigns.


Ludo will be particularly happy to see #11, Invasion of Sicily, as we don't have it on our official scenarios list but it's one of his favorite battles. :)

quote:

That's what I'd like to design. Some are lesser known or popular battles - but hey, how many D-Day battles are you going to play?????? [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed, I'm a fan of the more obscure but important battles, as are many of our designers. While we plan more traditionally-themed scenario packs for the future, the initial release should have more than a few pleasant surprises for grognards.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 19
- 6/4/2003 1:00:18 AM   
Paul Wykes

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 3/4/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
Hi,

just wanted to add my voice to that the list sounds very good. I to like to see the more unusual battles and whats ifs.

The battle of Gibralter sounds interesting. Any chance of operation sealion..? :)

Paul

(in reply to T-28A)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Coming Soon and In Development] >> Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!) >> Questionnaire 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

0.109