Ost Front: Describe YOUR Campaign Experience

[bcgames]

Given...

Ground Scale: 1 Km per hex
Unit Scale: Battalion/Company/Platoon
Time Scale: One day is 3 to 5 day turns and one night turn (depending on the time of year)
Playable Units: Corps or below
Scenario Length: 30 turns or less

...what does YOUR campaign game experience look like?

There are no wrong answers. Be the ball...

[76mm]

This is pretty much the scale of the Tiller Panzer Campaigns series, although I think they use two hour turns. Generally this scale works very well in my view.

[EDIT] Although I have to say that I am more of a monster scenario fan, so please no hard limits on map size, number of units, etc. in the scenario editor.

[bcgames]

I didn't phrase this question correctly. Given that folks desire a "campaign game" else "I won't buy", I want to know what YOU think this Campaign Game is given the parameters stated above. Thanks.

[governato]

My suggestions: find one unit for each side that played a significant role over the Summer 42 - Winter 43 of the campaign. I suggest a Panzer Korps and a Soviet Tank Army...

-Follow them through engagements of increasing scale and scope

- even better if the two units eventually meet ...so I suggest

XLVIII Panzer Corps
5th Tank Army

I personally care more for historical scenarios, but the scenarios could be linked and evolve based on outcomes as in some other games. Maybe one could spend 'points' for additional resources, say better air cover, more fuel (...or LESS for their opponent!) to test alternatives and make scenarios less predictable.

Engagements: Kharkhov 42, Operation Blue, late Summer approach to the Volga and the city Stalingrad, Operation Uranus and the following German counterattacks all seem great operations from which draw division and corps/army level scenarios, depending on how far into '43 you want to get...

I personally 'd stay away from the fight INSIDE Stalingrad, it has been done and the game engine excels at moving engagements. Grinding battles can be left to older engines .

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato

My suggestions: find one unit for each side that played a significant role over the Summer 42 - Winter 43 of the campaign. I suggest a Panzer Korps and a Soviet Tank Army...

-Follow them through engagements of increasing scale and scope

- even better if the two units eventually meet ...so I suggest

XLVIII Panzer Corps
5th Tank Army

I fully support your premise.

ORIGINAL: governato
I personally care more for historical scenarios, but the scenarios could be linked and evolve based on outcomes as in some other games. Maybe one could spend 'points' for additional resources, say better air cover, more fuel (...or LESS for their opponent!) to test alternatives and make scenarios less predictable.

We haven't arrived at this point yet in the coding. Using our "wavy hand" of design concept--you are suggesting in the right direction.

ORIGINAL: governato
Engagements: Kharkhov 42, Operation Blue, late Summer approach to the Volga and the city Stalingrad, Operation Uranus and the following German counterattacks all seem great operations from which draw division and corps/army level scenarios, depending on how far into '43 you want to get...

We're currently looking at Operation Heron, Operation Uranus, Operation Winter Storm and maybe a tad of Operation Little Saturn (as impacts the operation of airfields at Tatinskaija and Morozovsk). Kharkov 42 and Operation Blue (as a whole) are not part of this game at this time.

ORIGINAL: governato
I personally 'd stay away from the fight INSIDE Stalingrad, it has been done and the game engine excels at moving engagements. Grinding battles can be left to older engines .

Maybe so...maybe not. Scenario development will tell the tale.

Thanks for these and your suggestions in the past!

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

...I have to say that I am more of a monster scenario fan, so please no hard limits on map size, number of units, etc. in the scenario editor.

Working now on an Eastern Front scenario employing the "monster change" to the engine--i.e. breakdown/build-up. From what I see so far, it could be a nice compromise position between the large and the playable. We'll see.

Though I remain a strong advocate for small and short scenarios, I also like the large, long road...even if I can't find the time to play them. But someday.

[Alan Sharif]

I must confess, I really struggle to play scenarios with hundreds of counters. Two or three turns in I give up. I may be in a minority here, but I doubt it. Linking smaller ( not small) scenarios sounds like the way to go to me.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Alan Sharif

I must confess, I really struggle to play scenarios with hundreds of counters. Two or three turns in I give up.

A fair point. But I give up one turn sooner.

ORIGINAL: Alan Sharif
I may be in a minority here, but I doubt it. Linking smaller (not small) scenarios sounds like the way to go to me.

If you think that, then the two of us plus BK describe the majority of the scenario development team; that's the direction of the next game. But I will tip my hat and a bit of my energy--without embarrassment--towards the satisfaction of those who like The Big Game.

[governato]

'Small' scenarios for the win.

More correctly: I prefer scenarios where the players' decisions would be similar to the commander of whatever operation the game is trying to reproduce.
For example I am a big fan of the game 'Command Ops' because one can have a 'monster' scenario ..but I do not need to to worry about decisions that my staff would be competent to take... because I can delegate the AI.


So I strongly favor a flexible AI that can take high level orders if I want to (objectives, waypoints, support, loss tolerance etc etc) and then it lets me take the wheel if/when it 's fun to micromanage.
Because those Tiger tank platoons, yeah I may want to drive them myself .

[Saint Ruth]

Hi, yes, the game needs some AI assistant all right.
Cheers,
Brian [8D]

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato

...I prefer scenarios where the players' decisions would be similar to the commander of whatever operation the game is trying to reproduce.
For example I am a big fan of the game 'Command Ops' because one can have a 'monster' scenario ..but I do not need to to worry about decisions that my staff would be competent to take... because I can delegate the AI.

So I strongly favor a flexible AI that can take high level orders if I want to (objectives, waypoints, support, loss tolerance etc etc) and then it lets me take the wheel if/when it 's fun to micromanage...

Interesting. For players of the game, describe what you would like to see in a "staff-assisted" capability.

[canuckgamer]

I am okay with large scenarios as long as there is the option of saving your move so you don't have to finish a move in one sitting. As I only play PBEM this would be an important option for me.
On a related subject which I brought up for Desert War the replays can sometimes get a little confusing when there are a lot of combats in a turn because I view the results of each one by right clicking on the battle hex for the detailed report. This would even be a bigger issue with larger scenarios. My suggestion is to somehow highlight the latest battle or only show the latest one.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: bcgames


Interesting. For players of the game, describe what you would like to see in a "staff-assisted" capability.

ability for the player to set WHAT the AI needs to achieve

- objectives and waypoints
- time to arrival (to coordinate attacks, aware that it was difficult to achieve in WWII, but they tried)
- type of mission: say
move
rest
reorganize
defend
attack
secure
deny crossing
secure crossing


set the HOW
- frontage
- aggression level
- loss tolerance
- probe
- attack
- bombard

HELP with
- assigning priorities for
- air support
- intel points

These are partially taken from Command Ops UI, but they give a good idea. One should be able to do that for formation (anything below a given HQ) and be able to switch the AI control on/off at the end of a turn (but perhaps not during).

I personally do not mind at all if the AI needs a few minutes to collect its ..thoughts. Also different AI levels could be assigned to different formations at the scenario design level.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

For players of the game, describe what you would like to see in a "staff-assisted" capability.

Thought Experiment 1. What does your staff-assisted game-play look like? The scripting engine allows the AI to operate on its own against itself--right now. So...Run a Desert War scenario AI vs AI. Watching the Film following each turn, think about what parts of the game you want to control and what parts you would like to have The Option for your Staff--the AI to control. The idea idea here is about scaling back what the game already does to what you--The Player--consider "AI-assisted".

Thought Experiment 2. What does your AI-assisted movement planning phase look like? How would you surrender the movement of multiple individual units to a single organizational/formation move? Would you...Could you?

What say you?

[benpark]

An optional method of play proposal-

Having the AI control the "big picture" force of (for example) an entire army/corps, where the player controls a division would be interesting to me, at least. Particularly given the WeGo system.

-The AI would issue the division a particular objective at the start of the scenario (maybe random, from 3-4 set choices for friendly AI programming), with boundaries for operations area. These could be breached within reason, but with some command issues.

-The friendly AI front lines would force the player to watch their flanks in a way that we don't need to when we play the entire force ourselves. Maybe even task each friendly AI division with a "personality"- reckless, conservative, etc.

-Possible add "support requests" for things like recon by air, air support, etc. that may be turned down or approved.

-Add a basic system for messages and basic choices. This would allow for some interaction with nearby AI friendly forces. An example would be a request by the AI to shift the division boundary by 5 hexes into the players area. This would then shift the boundary 5 to the south, etc. The player could then "approve" or "not approve" the change, based upon what's happening on the ground. Adds a little role-playing, but should be kept basic and to a minimum. The player could maybe be given 1-2 of these requests as well to the higher AI command.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: benpark

An optional method of play proposal-

Having the AI control the "big picture" force of (for example) an entire army/corps, where the player controls a division would be interesting to me, at least. Particularly given the WeGo system.

-The AI would issue the division a particular objective at the start of the scenario (maybe random, from 3-4 set choices for friendly AI programming), with boundaries for operations area. These could be breached within reason, but with some command issues.

-The friendly AI front lines would force the player to watch their flanks in a way that we don't need to when we play the entire force ourselves. Maybe even task each friendly AI division with a "personality"- reckless, conservative, etc.

-Possible add "support requests" for things like recon by air, air support, etc. that may be turned down or approved.

-Add a basic system for messages and basic choices. This would allow for some interaction with nearby AI friendly forces. An example would be a request by the AI to shift the division boundary by 5 hexes into the players area. This would then shift the boundary 5 to the south, etc. The player could then "approve" or "not approve" the change, based upon what's happening on the ground. Adds a little role-playing, but should be kept basic and to a minimum. The player could maybe be given 1-2 of these requests as well to the higher AI command.

An interesting proposal using the AI scripting engine to do a bit more to expand the gaming experience. Current set-up area definitions could be used to define "boundaries" that separate Player Forces from adjacent, AI-scripted friendly forces. You can't move or fire artillery into another organization's area of operations of course--a boundary is a boundary. Adjacent forces can be scripted to react based on the success or failure of the Player Force. Likes it.

Just continuing the thought...in the end, The Coder Rules.

[Saint Ruth]

Good ideas there, but I'll start to crawl before running, so perhaps for a start, just allow the AI assist to handle unassigned artillery, air, naval, and ground assets.
Then "move org" to a destination, and continue from there!
Cheers,
Brian [8D]

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: canuckgamer

I am okay with large scenarios as long as there is the option of saving your move so you don't have to finish a move in one sitting. As I only play PBEM this would be an important option for me.
On a related subject which I brought up for Desert War the replays can sometimes get a little confusing when there are a lot of combats in a turn because I view the results of each one by right clicking on the battle hex for the detailed report. This would even be a bigger issue with larger scenarios. My suggestion is to somehow highlight the latest battle or only show the latest one.

Yes, unfortunately that won't get into the next patch, but I'll do it as it's a good idea.
Cheers,
Brian

[benpark]

Great. Looking forward to this one.

[wodin]

Stalingrad? Sounds like Stalingrad campaign, battle for City.