Matrix Games Forums

Happy 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!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is Korsun pocket too gamey

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> Is Korsun pocket too gamey Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is Korsun pocket too gamey - 2/17/2004 12:36:24 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
Korsun pocket is a great game but I find that it is a not a very good simulation of combat maneuver. HTTR is a very good simulation of combat and I expect later games in the panther series to deal with some of the current holes in the game. Back to what I find gamey about Korsun pocket is the moving of unit all over the place to get certain combat odds and then units that were in the last attack (if it was an overrun) move a far to distance to join in a another attack. The stacking limits should be based on steps or troops and vehicles and I prefer to drop exacts odds and results table. Also I prefer computer games using the actual inventory of a combat unit rather than steps.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 2/18/2004 11:41:08 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 11:58:59 AM   
Tomus

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 9/22/2003
From: UK
Status: offline
The level in KP is different to that of HTTR there you are dealing with realtime versus turn based and also the level of troops which is company-battalion versus regimental-divisional.

Also the turn base is a long time so a turn in KP for ATD represents 12hrs. In 12hrs you can do alot and for a regimental scale I don't think that pushing troops up or down a road to increase the odds of attack is that unfeasible. In fact it happened. In 12hrs a lot can change on a battle field.

I found that coming from an RTS world mainly getting my mond around the different time scales in turn based is hard and takes time. KP is not a 60second turn a la combat mission but 8hours so you need to try and imagine what these units could do given 8hrs.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 2
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 1:24:19 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4867
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

... The stacking limits should be based on steps ...


Agreed. The current method makes no sense to me either.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 3
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 4:49:06 PM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
There is more to how many folks can be in one location at one time than merely counting bodies and vehicles of the combat arms of divisions. I believe the practical limits have more to do with the number of organizations that in the location than the number of folks; particularly at this scale of a game.

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 4
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 5:50:36 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
"Also the turn base is a long time so a turn in KP for ATD represents 12hrs. In 12hrs you can do alot and for a regimental scale I don't think that pushing troops up or down a road to increase the odds of attack is that unfeasible. In fact it happened. In 12hrs a lot can change on a battle field. "

The problem I have is the leap frogging where a unit (A) that is sitting still is involved in combat with a unit (B) that moved 10 spaces then unit A moves 10 spaces to join in on an attack with unit C which then moves 10 spaces to join an attack with unit D.

You have battle where you surround a stack of enemy and you keep on pulling in and out units so you can have extra attack to overcome stacking limits and the maximum odds allowed. The units (A) surrounding a stack attack they then switch position with unit on front line (B), then unit B attack the surrounded stack.

For reply 4 you can use a combination of troops and organization but organization seem too arbitrary.

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 5
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 8:23:17 PM   
raydude

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Hi MadMickey,

I'm a big fan of HTTR as well, but I do agree with the other poster that the time scale and units scale lends itself well to the turn-based mode of Korsun Pocket.

As for your example, well I find it a little confusing. I thought units only get 1 action per turn, and only overruns would result in a unit not using up its action?

if unit A is in combat with unit B then that is its one action. It could move near to or into the hex with unit C but it cannot participate in the attack unless it overran unit B. And if it did overrun unit B then that's what overruns let the attack do. The overrun is supposed to be a quick and sudden shock attack that overwhelms the defenses and allows the attacker to continue its advance. It's the whole idea behind the blitzkrieg.

So yeah, theoretically your chain of attacks would work if all the attacks were successful overruns. But that's what happens when you have a large shock force conducting a blitzkrieg attack.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 6
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 9:08:11 PM   
Chelco

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/6/2003
Status: offline
Hello all,
Am I wrong if I think that HTTR is also actually turn-based? In every simulation the program calculates one discrete event per time (i.e. it doesn't calculate two or more things at the same time) keeping all the other variables (enemy positions, terrain, etc) constant. This means that eventually there is a turn duration, which is the amount of time the discrete event takes. This span of time can be extremely short (HTTR) or 12 hrs (KP: AtD). IMHO, simulation results became meaningful if you look at them after 4 or 6 turns, whatever they last. Based on this, it makes sense to analyze what happened in a 2 day span of KP (this division moved from here to there and destroyed this or that units) but not for shorter periods. What I mean that a lot of things that happen in shorter periods may not make sense and we should refrain from wondering if they make sense or not. Is like disassembling a radio hoping to find the reason why the comentator said it is going to snow tonight. We should analyze and scrutinize the results that come out of KP after certain period of time and not to worry too much about the intimate mechanisms that generate them. We shouldn't be worried if they make sense, that's what I mean.
Just my humble opinion.

(in reply to raydude)
Post #: 7
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/17/2004 9:24:16 PM   
Chelco

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/6/2003
Status: offline
Ooops!
We obviously have to worry if the results obtained after two or three days in KP make sense. I think they do.

(in reply to Chelco)
Post #: 8
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/18/2004 4:25:03 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

... The stacking limits should be based on steps ...


Agreed. The current method makes no sense to me either.


Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 9
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 1:56:03 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 10
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 2:28:18 AM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.


The Kp game enhine is all about simplicity, while allowing strategy and tactics to a fair depth.

Arty fire is an example, Offensivly the arty is modelled to imply the softening up etc is all intergrated. Defensive arty counterbattery is also represented by defensive shifts allowed for defending arty.

Russians have a lot of indepedant anti-aircraft/anti tank guns that can be stacked with other units.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 11
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 4:29:08 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.


As Pawlock points out, defensive artillery is modelled. As far as softening up an objective is concerned, I think that the opening Russian attacks in Korsun Pocket, where the minimum artillery effect is +5 shifts counts as softening up!

Russian infantry have no inherent anti-tank defense because that's how the Russians organised their army. The fact that this makes Russian infantry less flexible and less capable of independent operations that German infantry is entirely as it should be.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 12
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 6:12:13 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
I do not have a problem with Russian division having no AT units; I have a problem that a separate AT/AA unit counts against stacking limits. Also a Russian AT regiment has 1 AT shift whereas a German infantry regiment has 3 AT shifts. Does panzerfaust explain the big difference?
As far as softening up with artillery you have periods where you have artillery in range of enemy, but you do not have enough ground troop to put in a reasonable attack, so your artillery does noting for one or more turns. When defending (no counter attack reasonable) your artillery units are useless.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 2/19/2004 4:36:44 PM >

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 13
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 1:34:02 PM   
JSS

 

Posts: 781
Joined: 10/15/2003
Status: offline
quote:

madmickey wrote:

Also I prefer computer games using the actual inventory of a combat unit rather than steps.


madmickey,

The beauty of DBWWII is that it uses indirect methods to model combat operations. It does this better than any other game or simulation I've seen. As you look for actual inventories you miss the model. Each step is far more than just x number of soldiers, machine guns, etc... a step loss does not even represent pure kills.. it also models loss of combat power due to disorganization.

Artillery losses would normally only effect companies (far below model scale) rather than regiments. The softening up effect described by Gregor above is truly effective!

There are certain conditions where I would like to see the direct artillery barrages you mention... specifically if your opponent puts enough steps into a hex that you are in the double dice combat range I'd like to see massed artillery cause steps losses using the same algorithm as the double dice combat... that is 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% chance of CRT result and then roll a die for actual step losses and/or a retreat result. It could also leave an interdiction marker to model delayed movement!

JSS

< Message edited by JSS -- 2/19/2004 8:38:11 PM >

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 14
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 1:35:10 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4867
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor


I have no problem with using steps rather than counting men and tanks and agree it can be used effectively to take combat power into account. What makes no sense to me is the 4 unit rule on stacking. You won't ever convince me that 4 AT companies take up as much space, or effectively cover the same ground, as 4 infantry regiments. You also won't convince me that 4 one step regiments should be equivalent for stacking to 4 four step regiments even if steps don't equate 1:1 with men/tanks. Of course you don't have to convince me since it's your game. I just think a step limit rather than a unit limit would be more realistic without adding any complexity to the rules.

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 15
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 1:51:21 PM   
Rob Gjessing


Posts: 524
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Considering I cant convince you Elmo I wont try.

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 16
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 4:06:13 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4867
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Gjessing

Considering I cant convince you Elmo I wont try.


I'd be happy to hear your thoughts even if my mind is made up already. Who knows, I might change your mind.

(in reply to Rob Gjessing)
Post #: 17
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 7:05:16 PM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
I suppose one can simply ask which model is more accurate, the step stacking model, or the organization stacking model; they both will have their accuracies and inaccuracies.

My opinion is a think the current method is the lesser of two evils

One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 18
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 9:51:14 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor


I have no problem with using steps rather than counting men and tanks and agree it can be used effectively to take combat power into account. What makes no sense to me is the 4 unit rule on stacking. You won't ever convince me that 4 AT companies take up as much space, or effectively cover the same ground, as 4 infantry regiments. You also won't convince me that 4 one step regiments should be equivalent for stacking to 4 four step regiments even if steps don't equate 1:1 with men/tanks. Of course you don't have to convince me since it's your game. I just think a step limit rather than a unit limit would be more realistic without adding any complexity to the rules.


While you look at the negative issues here, there is a very positive one which is often overlooked but has big effects.

Double dice chances, AT units even the Russian ones have reasonable defence strenghts, perhaps even equivelant of a similar 2 or 3 step unit.
So say to stack 2 AT units with a couple of 2 step inf units in a clear hex, which would equal 6 steps. Under most cicumstances chances of 2 dice rolled would be nought.

Now lets look at 4 inf units, 3 with 2 steps, 1 with 3 steps, probably be equal in def str of previous example. But now you have 9 steps which would equate normally to a 75 percent chance of 2 dice. Being that most results in this example are gonna favour the attacker, whose the loser now? The At unit stack or the pure inf stack?

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 19
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 10:46:26 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4867
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

...One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???


Now that is a good idea!

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 20
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/19/2004 11:08:52 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???


Unfortunatly, this would lead to more gamey tactics and anonolies than what the original system employs now.

First off, you would have clear advantage of having greater def str in hex, in fact if this was free, you could have unlimited ATs present.

Then you have the retreat to consder, as it is now one tactic is to deny a retreat path by making sure the hexes he can retreat to have 4 units in. Under the free stacking an AT could never be subject to this.

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 21
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 12:49:51 AM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
My comment was off the cuff, and not thought through, however, I naturally meant and should've said, one AT unit stacking free.

I've seen several board games that employ this mechanic of allowing one, "small", unit to stack free over and above the normal counter stacking limit. I.e. allow one to stack one battalion size unit to stack free in a game that is basically a regimental unit game. I think Pawlock makes a good point regarding being careful of the law of unintended consequences and what that would do to overall defence strength of a hex. If one implemented this, one probably should lower their defence factor rating or at least decide if it is a problem or not.

Actually I might argue that that rating is a little high anyway, though reducing those units to one step helped to address that issue significantly and was a very good move on V1.10's part as I recall, naturally all IMHO

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to Pawlock)
Post #: 22
RE: Is Korsun pocket too gamey - 2/20/2004 1:39:09 AM   
j campbell


Posts: 283
Joined: 1/20/2001
From: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: offline
I also favor step stacking to unit stacking as it represents a manpower/territory ratio more than anything else. i like the way the gamers operationl games use "regimental equivilants" but that is just me-to each his own. i love KP and all its other siblings AtD and soon BiN so keep them coming and i will keep playing.

In response to madmickeys question regarding the 3 shifts of german units over their 1941 soviet counterparts it can easily be summed up as tactical superiority.

the soviets entered the war with around 18000,-20000 tanks of all forms -mostly T-26 i believe but nonetheless armor (numbers differ based on sources cited). the germans had just over 3000. By the opening of operation typhoon the germans still had about 70% of their total tank force and an operational number of about 1500 tanks or so-they actually outnumbered the soviets in armor in the moscow theatre (according to Glantz "Clash of titans").

thereofre it would be easy to surmise that german anti-tank skills where quite adept at overcoming large numbers of opposing armor.

_____________________________

"the willow branch but bends beneath the snow"

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 23
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 1:47:43 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
On the defense fire
If you sitting on defense and see someone building up their force, you cannot use your artillery. Also mobile short-range artillery is difficult to use in defense as it can easily be overrun because of length of the turns. No shoot and scoot
In addition you cannot control where to use defense fire, the first attack will use up the artillery so a smart play will always use this gambit of attacking an unimportant target first. Artillery fire only last a short time and the amount of shell they have is the critical issue. Units that have being constantly using their supplies should not have the same capability of units sitting still hoarding their ammo.
Talking about supplies the longer the supply line the less effective a unit is going to be. Korsun Pocket solution is either in supply, slightlu out of supply or out.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 2/20/2004 4:12:46 PM >

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 24
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 1:58:59 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1334
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
to J campbell terrible Soviet generalship had a lot to due with Russian tank losses.
I assumed it was Panzer faust/ Panzerchek for superiority of German units but they had better metallurgy as well.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 25
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 2:27:59 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

On the defense fire
If you sitting on defense and see someone building up their force, you cannot use your artillery. Also mobile short-range artillery is difficult to use in defense as it can easily be overrun because of length of the turns. No shoot and scoot
In addition you cannot control where to use defense fire, the first attack will use up the artillery so a smart play will always use this gambit of attacking an unimportant target first. Artillery fire only last a short time and the amount of shell they have is the critical issue. Units that have being constantly using their supplies should not have the same capability of units sitting still hoarding their ammo.
Talking about supplies the longer the supply line the less effective a unit is going to be. Korsun Pocket solution is either in supply or out.


When armies attack, they don't just move everybody up to the front line, where an alert opponent, such as yourself, can just clobber them. Most of the attacking forces form up in relatively safe areas, and only move right up at the last possible moment, and often at night.

They are naturally vulnerable while close to the front line and during the attack itself, and that's why any defending artillery unit in range can contribute a shift. Defending artillery can contribute a shift to all combats within range, not just a single combat, precisely to avoid the gamey tactic you describe.

Short range artillery is always going to vulnerable to attack, that's in part just what the attackers are aiming to do. Shooting and scooting is all very well, but you won't scoot if nobody has told you there's a problem, and confusion and disorganisation in the defenders are part of any really successful attack. Also, artillery units who scoot too soon often experience rapid changes in their command structure, so some of them are just likely to be swallowed up.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 26
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 2:43:58 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

I suppose one can simply ask which model is more accurate, the step stacking model, or the organization stacking model; they both will have their accuracies and inaccuracies.

My opinion is a think the current method is the lesser of two evils

One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???


Stacking units for 'free' is fine in a boardgame, where you've made the player do all the bookkeeping anyway, so one more rule is neither here nor there. However, in a computer game it's a little different. You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

As I mentioned before, making new rules is easy. Displaying information about them in the limited context of a computer screen is the area that easily causes the most dissension in the design team.

In any case, I believe the changes in the 1.10 patch of KP have ensured that this isn't a real problem. Anyone who stacks four AT units in a hex is committing suicide. In Battles in Normandy, the Brits get a small number of highly effective 17 pdr AT units. I'm not going to use these doing strange gamey things. They go straight to front line, where I'll use them to hold off those SS Panzer divisions trying to hurl me back into the sea!

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 27
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 4:48:05 PM   
Joel Rauber

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Stacking units for 'free' is fine in a boardgame, where you've made the player do all the bookkeeping anyway, so one more rule is neither here nor there. However, in a computer game it's a little different.


From a players viewpoint I don't understand the above. One of the joys of computer gaming over board game playing is that the computer takes care of enforcing the rules so its easier for the player and is just fine in the computer game to add the rule. Its less fine in a board game where now, I as the player, must keep track of the extra rule and the special case.

Of course, the opposite is the case for the coders.

quote:

You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?


This is a very good point. The coders of the computer game have to make a "is it worth it" judgement on every rule that is going to be added. And this is an excellent example of that cost/benefit judgement that must be made. Every coder and designer at SSG might agree that allowing one AT unit to stack free is an excellent idea, more realistic and taken by itself would be better for the game.

However, if the cost is a lousier unit display, a forced redesign of the display that likely would make info harder to intuit for the user, etc etc, then it may not simply be worth the cost of adding such a feature that wouldn't effect game play, or the realism, all that much. And particularly so, if the change is questionable, even on its on merits.

I'm sure that won't prevent people, including me from making suggestions, though its good for us to hear sometimes where even a good suggestion may suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Incidently, I'm in some awe at the cleverness and thought that went into the interface for KP, having tried some coding of these things I have some appreciation of what's involved. I consider the KP interface to be one of the best I've seen for this style of a wargame.

quote:

As I mentioned before, making new rules is easy. Displaying information about them in the limited context of a computer screen is the area that easily causes the most dissension in the design team.


I can appreciate that!

quote:

In any case, I believe the changes in the 1.10 patch of KP have ensured that this isn't a real problem. Anyone who stacks four AT units in a hex is committing suicide.


I liked those changes and believe they improved things significantly, good show!

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 28
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 11:09:12 PM   
HercMighty


Posts: 398
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: Minnesota, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

Gregor


If you upped the resolution, should be fairly easy. Most systems out there will handle 1600x1200 with no problem and look a lot nicer and allow for more room to display information. I was really amazed this game didn't allow for higher resolutions.

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 29
RE: Is Korsun pocket to gamey - 2/20/2004 11:23:42 PM   
raydude

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Um, count me among one of those who likes 1024 X 760. Anything higher would result in smaller text and strained eyeballs

(in reply to HercMighty)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> Is Korsun pocket too gamey Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.114