AnyOne Playing this?

World War II: General Commander is an introductory war strategy game which brings a unique mix of scale, combat dynamics, and force management. An intuitive combination of rules and controls will give beginning wargamers and real time strategy fans the opportunity to simulate Germany’s famous last Blitzkrieg from either side.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Toby42 »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Ok - I'm in. I'll buy tonight in the hope that the devs get the cash to do what they need to. I wasn't disappointed with the end result of World War One when I bought it in it's "pre-release" state...so I'll take a hit for the boys [:'(]

I really like the look of the 3D map (would LURV Panther to go this way - I think it would "finalise" the brilliance of their engine!) and I like the strategic element of the roads.

Well, JD let us know what your opinion is of this one! I'm not into a click-fest. Fingers and brain are too old to work together in "Harmony" anymore [8|]
Tony
oldspec4
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by oldspec4 »

I'd like to get some more input too...I've played around w/ the Demo and I like the concept of the game.

BTW, I was also concerned about the speed of the game. But you can slow the action down to a crawl so IMO the click-fest is not an issue.

User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39325
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Erik Rutins »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Damn!  Ping of death followed by game freeze in the early stages of the Bastogne scenario.  I note that an anti-adware warning popped up right before the freeze, identifying the WW2 General Commander folder as containing the suspect app...

Sounds like a false alarm by your adware app that destabilized the game. If it was trying to stop part of the game from working that would certainly do it.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

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

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Toby42 »

ORIGINAL: oldspec4

I'd like to get some more input too...I've played around w/ the Demo and I like the concept of the game.

BTW, I was also concerned about the speed of the game. But you can slow the action down to a crawl so IMO the click-fest is not an issue.



Has Matrix posted the Demo on their website yet???
Tony
oldspec4
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by oldspec4 »

Don't think so..I downloaded Demo from the developer's site.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39325
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Erik Rutins »

Not yet, we're still working on that.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

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

Freedom is not Free.
GIveloper
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by GIveloper »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Victor.  I also read your very good guide about the game and I have a very similar wargaming background to you, so I see all of the things you are achieving or trying to achieve with your design.  I think it's great so far, and I hope you get enough positive feedback from other players to keep you 100% motivated! 

One key thing I believe you have to decide is whether you are trying to address the (mostly) older board gaming market or the (mostly) younger RTS market.  I don't think you can win with both groups.  So far, I see the direction you are taking as a boardgamer's approach, but adding the real time element and the isometric views for realism, while avoiding the RTS click-fest.  Obviously, I like that direction myself, but I wonder where the market will pull you?

An example of how I would like to see the game evolve is in the crucial Air component - how to model the critical effect of air without the RTS-style air attacks currently in the game?  I would suggest that Air should be more abstracted and statistically modelled, with a focus on attrition of all unit strengths, reductions of efficiency and general interdiction of supply, based on who has air superiority, the weather, allocation of mission types, etc.  The players should use sliders or some similar device to define their strategy (% allocated to CAS, Interdiction, Recon, etc.) while air supply values are set by the scenario designer to reflect limited numbers of suitable aircraft.  Units can then be given supply priority by players and have a chance of receiving airdrops each turn if they cannot trace a supply path.  Air drops can also miss and go to nearby enemy units.  Random chance and target detection status (spotted, time since last sighting, etc.) should determine the chance and impact of air strikes.  CAS should have a random chance of hitting adjacent friendly units as well - a common problem.  You might want to consider a separate Air Operations Map, where the players can set their geographic priorities for air operations, so that, for example, they can focus all their assets on the most dangerous enemy movement.  Also, it should be possible to strike bridges and supply dumps to interdict/reduce supply efficiency.

Osprey - I would say that this game is somewhat ahead of where the original Crown of Glory was.  It does need more work, but it's already a fun and educational game if you can look past the flaws, IMO.  CoG never did grab my attention.  maybe I should look at the latest addition again.

Markus

Markus.... well... I need time to read your email. We are really moving to the core of "How to simulate Operation games w/o died traying it"

For me WWII:GC is a pure evolution, I was convinced that introduce the time variable on a Operational game is needed, on turn based I was loosing something, I know RTS = clickfest, but becouse nobody has trying something different, or adding the element for make it easy... example: if you play online but with many Timeout, it is a turn based game!!

But I know the people can not recorgnize our game with anything existing, and that is the problem. Problem for us and the sales ;)... but we did it, knowing the consequences..

Another question:

What element we want to control during the game... in that case Supplies, the Air attack etc... We simplify, Air Attack is a pure support unit to reduce the efficience of attacked units (GC is not a RTS , the battalions are not destroy by an air attack... ). Talking about audience... if we include all, the game is very hardcore, too much. So we decide to simplify, perhaps the best would be to create different game mode, with alternative for gamers that want to control everything and other that just want to play different global strategics... not focusing in every detail.

Another question is. really the Generals had this controls of units.. supply etc during the combats? I do not think that, you say FoW was severe, you have to imagine in those days!! One day I would like to simulate the exactly atmosfere of HQ during the combats... radio message, notes comming from footmen messangers, wrong informations... well a nightmare...

I will back to you regarding supplies, it is quite interesting subject.

Victor.



WWII: GC Designer
User avatar
spellir74
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:30 am

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by spellir74 »

Dude I'm impressed with what I'm reading so far (eg not a click fest --but innovative RTS etc; the battalion scale/both operations and combat).

I been searching for something just like this.

I'm doing other stuff right now. But I guess I'm going to have to put that stuff aside and learn this.
test

Image
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by JudgeDredd »

Ok - I was going to buy it - unfortunately, with buying two Matrix games this month, my mother and sister visiting for a week next week and my Army reunion next month, it looks like funds are too tight to justify another purchase.
 
In the words of a famous Mayor Terminator - I'll be back!
Alba gu' brath
GIveloper
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by GIveloper »

Back to the discussion of future features, or how to improve GC... We need to see the product like a game that try a zoom out management, more to macromanagement than micro.. spell74 said well in another thread we usually play tactical games or high level strategic games, but few non turn based Operational Games.. Those operationals have a BIG issue: the volume of unit to manage (we are talking about WWII..).
So any new feature must be adapted to and easy and automate way to handled it, or player will die trying that.
 
Independent or hardcore/soft gamer, the most is the time you have to play game.. probably 2 or 4 hours per week (average). A medium scenario should be playable in this time frame or most of you will be insatisfy.. and I do not say 2 or 4 easy play hours, I mean a "brain game" of 2 or 4 hours scenario...
 
So basically what could be your average expectation:
 
- No hiding rule pls, clear and intuitive.
- 2/4 hours by game.
- "Brain" pls, not just click-click.
- Historical context and simulation.
- If I could play online with my friends... it will be great.
- Nice presentation.
- A challenge...
 
What do you think? ..... I am far away?
 
Victor.
 
WWII: GC Designer
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Victor.  I also read your very good guide about the game and I have a very similar wargaming background to you, so I see all of the things you are achieving or trying to achieve with your design.  I think it's great so far, and I hope you get enough positive feedback from other players to keep you 100% motivated! 

One key thing I believe you have to decide is whether you are trying to address the (mostly) older board gaming market or the (mostly) younger RTS market.  I don't think you can win with both groups.  So far, I see the direction you are taking as a boardgamer's approach, but adding the real time element and the isometric views for realism, while avoiding the RTS click-fest.  Obviously, I like that direction myself, but I wonder where the market will pull you?

An example of how I would like to see the game evolve is in the crucial Air component - how to model the critical effect of air without the RTS-style air attacks currently in the game?  I would suggest that Air should be more abstracted and statistically modelled, with a focus on attrition of all unit strengths, reductions of efficiency and general interdiction of supply, based on who has air superiority, the weather, allocation of mission types, etc.  The players should use sliders or some similar device to define their strategy (% allocated to CAS, Interdiction, Recon, etc.) while air supply values are set by the scenario designer to reflect limited numbers of suitable aircraft.  Units can then be given supply priority by players and have a chance of receiving airdrops each turn if they cannot trace a supply path.  Air drops can also miss and go to nearby enemy units.  Random chance and target detection status (spotted, time since last sighting, etc.) should determine the chance and impact of air strikes.  CAS should have a random chance of hitting adjacent friendly units as well - a common problem.  You might want to consider a separate Air Operations Map, where the players can set their geographic priorities for air operations, so that, for example, they can focus all their assets on the most dangerous enemy movement.  Also, it should be possible to strike bridges and supply dumps to interdict/reduce supply efficiency.

Osprey - I would say that this game is somewhat ahead of where the original Crown of Glory was.  It does need more work, but it's already a fun and educational game if you can look past the flaws, IMO.  CoG never did grab my attention.  maybe I should look at the latest addition again.

Markus

Markus.... well... I need time to read your email. We are really moving to the core of "How to simulate Operation games w/o died traying it"

For me WWII:GC is a pure evolution, I was convinced that introduce the time variable on a Operational game is needed, on turn based I was loosing something, I know RTS = clickfest, but becouse nobody has trying something different, or adding the element for make it easy... example: if you play online but with many Timeout, it is a turn based game!!

But I know the people can not recorgnize our game with anything existing, and that is the problem. Problem for us and the sales ;)... but we did it, knowing the consequences..

Another question:

What element we want to control during the game... in that case Supplies, the Air attack etc... We simplify, Air Attack is a pure support unit to reduce the efficience of attacked units (GC is not a RTS , the battalions are not destroy by an air attack... ). Talking about audience... if we include all, the game is very hardcore, too much. So we decide to simplify, perhaps the best would be to create different game mode, with alternative for gamers that want to control everything and other that just want to play different global strategics... not focusing in every detail.

Another question is. really the Generals had this controls of units.. supply etc during the combats? I do not think that, you say FoW was severe, you have to imagine in those days!! One day I would like to simulate the exactly atmosfere of HQ during the combats... radio message, notes comming from footmen messangers, wrong informations... well a nightmare...

I will back to you regarding supplies, it is quite interesting subject.

Victor.




Hi again - I was travelling...

I understand your points and I agree that you have to pick a development path that can realistically be followed.

On the FoW point, that was a compliment :) I think the FoW is excellent - enemy divisions previously unknown emerge from the mist on my flank along an unguarded road - great! (This just happened to me).

Observations from another couple of hours play:

1. The ping of death came again but this time it was right after I alt-tabbed to read an email. I don't think the adware alert is the cause; it's somehow connected to coming out of the game (due to alt-tab or pop-up dialogue) and then going back in. Game freezes right after every time.

2. The AI plays different strategies each time, am I correct? When I replay the same scenario the AI sometimes defends, other times attacks my foremost units, one time with armor along this road, the next game with armor on the other side of the map. I'm loving it.

3. One negative about the AI; in the Bastogne scenario it once advanced the 101st Airborne straight towards by Panzer Divisions with no tank support and left Bastogne undefended behind it. I think a few tweaks are needed to make it a bit less aggressive when defending.

4. I notice that as the scenarios get more complex (Bastogne Corridor onwards) the battles become longer, e.g. the units sit and slog away at each other for a much longer period than in the earlier scenarios. I think some rules are needed on unit behaviour once certain casualty levels are reached (e.g. 10% losses and an attacking unit stops to regroup or 'Hold'. 20% losses and a defender withdraws 1 km, etc.) I guess there are such rules in the code already, but some of the AI units are just attacking to the bitter end. I'd like a bit more ebb and flow, some pauses to regroup and re-position, etc.

Still think this is a truly great design - just want to see it get even better!
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

Back to the discussion of future features, or how to improve GC... We need to see the product like a game that try a zoom out management, more to macromanagement than micro.. spell74 said well in another thread we usually play tactical games or high level strategic games, but few non turn based Operational Games.. Those operationals have a BIG issue: the volume of unit to manage (we are talking about WWII..).
So any new feature must be adapted to and easy and automate way to handled it, or player will die trying that.

Independent or hardcore/soft gamer, the most is the time you have to play game.. probably 2 or 4 hours per week (average). A medium scenario should be playable in this time frame or most of you will be insatisfy.. and I do not say 2 or 4 easy play hours, I mean a "brain game" of 2 or 4 hours scenario...

So basically what could be your average expectation:

- No hiding rule pls, clear and intuitive.
- 2/4 hours by game.
- "Brain" pls, not just click-click.
- Historical context and simulation.
- If I could play online with my friends... it will be great.
- Nice presentation.
- A challenge...

What do you think? ..... I am far away?

Victor.
Hi Victor,

Actually, we are saying the same thing. What I was trying to suggest (with too many words) is to simplify the Air component. No clicking of air units. No selection of targets and plane numbers, etc. Just some sliders and a map - set the balance between types of air op, chose the areas of focus and target types, and click 'Go'. Then it runs and runs until you change the settings, with maybe a few strike reports to remind you that it's there.

Totally abstracted, simple as hell :) Let the player focus on the land war.

Markus
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Hey - I just got promoted from Recruit to Trooper after playing Matrix games for a decade!!!  (Note to self - must post more text lol)
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
GIveloper
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by GIveloper »

[font="microsoft sans serif"]Hi Markus,[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]We include in the AI parameters to decide when to do some counterattacks even if its mission is defensive.. if not the attack army can just concentrate their troops and let’s go, knowing the AI never is going to attack its flank.. so you need to protect all the perimeters and cities even your are the attack army or you will have a surprise… In Bastogne perhaps we should include some more constraint to the defensive army… but if we know what the AI is going to do… (to defense Bastagne) what could be the challenge of this scenario?[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Air force: I understand now, it was included in the initial design: we called “opportunity areas”, also we did the same for fighter groups, we called “protect areas”, and working as you say by probability. In any case the mission option must be kept as we need to understand the airforce as support unit. Finally as always we have been forced to decide, and airforce gameplay was sacrificed. I believe these options can be included in the new design if we arrive to find a really good interface, the management time for airforce must be controlled or the global game will be impacted, it is quite similar to heavy artillery management. [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Regarding the objective selection: Yes and No, if we include the FoW, the bomber should not know where the enemy is, or if you want to destroy a bridge… I see it like a group of airplane looking for objectives, pending of the enemy’s unit (each unit have a different level of %to be located) the will have a % to find them and of course the area size. [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Supply: Hey Mark, that is a serious topic, if you limit the supply… well, how many gamers we will lose in the first match… 50%. Lost in Combat. Absolutely realistic, many of the decision were taken based on that, but it must be included as option in the game start options, we can increase the gamer workload so much that it can be boring. And the secret will be the interface of course… intuitive, clear and with main decisions, no micromanagement. Something like you said (priorities) could be nice.[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Supply, road network; Indeed the supplies have the importance in the game not based in a restrictive model, it is more to focus the gamer in finding the strategic points that are linked with the supplies distribution and the fast troops movement (by roads)…[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]All the best, Victor.[/font]
WWII: GC Designer
vonRocko
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:05 pm

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by vonRocko »

Victor,
You got my interest,and in a week or so,will get my money. This looks like it is worth a try![:)]
Thanks
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

[font="microsoft sans serif"]Hi Markus,[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]We include in the AI parameters to decide when to do some counterattacks even if its mission is defensive.. if not the attack army can just concentrate their troops and let’s go, knowing the AI never is going to attack its flank.. so you need to protect all the perimeters and cities even your are the attack army or you will have a surprise… In Bastogne perhaps we should include some more constraint to the defensive army… but if we know what the AI is going to do… (to defense Bastagne) what could be the challenge of this scenario?[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Air force: I understand now, it was included in the initial design: we called “opportunity areas”, also we did the same for fighter groups, we called “protect areas”, and working as you say by probability. In any case the mission option must be kept as we need to understand the airforce as support unit. Finally as always we have been forced to decide, and airforce gameplay was sacrificed. I believe these options can be included in the new design if we arrive to find a really good interface, the management time for airforce must be controlled or the global game will be impacted, it is quite similar to heavy artillery management. [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Regarding the objective selection: Yes and No, if we include the FoW, the bomber should not know where the enemy is, or if you want to destroy a bridge… I see it like a group of airplane looking for objectives, pending of the enemy’s unit (each unit have a different level of %to be located) the will have a % to find them and of course the area size. [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Supply: Hey Mark, that is a serious topic, if you limit the supply… well, how many gamers we will lose in the first match… 50%. Lost in Combat. Absolutely realistic, many of the decision were taken based on that, but it must be included as option in the game start options, we can increase the gamer workload so much that it can be boring. And the secret will be the interface of course… intuitive, clear and with main decisions, no micromanagement. Something like you said (priorities) could be nice.[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]Supply, road network; Indeed the supplies have the importance in the game not based in a restrictive model, it is more to focus the gamer in finding the strategic points that are linked with the supplies distribution and the fast troops movement (by roads)…[/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"] [/font]
[font="microsoft sans serif"]All the best, Victor.[/font]


Hi Victor,

I agree that the AI should be allowed to make local counter attacks - to keep us guessing. That is very important.

But a full counter-offensive by the USA AI with all its forces right at the start of the scenario? I think that takes us out of historically-based wargaming and into something else.

Best regards,

Markus
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
GIveloper
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by GIveloper »

Hi Mark,
 
Which scenario you are talking about?
 
Victor.
WWII: GC Designer
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Hi,

This was KG Pieper.  I am trying to add a screen cap I made but I can't see how to do that here.  'Add image' just asks me for a URL...  I will try to IM it to you.

Mark
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
SlickWilhelm
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by SlickWilhelm »

Hi Victor,

Even though I'm not a huge fan of the Battle of the Bulge, your new game does look interesting to me. I'm not sure if I'm going to buy it yet, but it's a possibility. The most important part of a game for me is being able to get into it initially, by having a good tutorial and good documentation. Coming second on my list is a competent AI.

Also, could you tell us if GC is fixed at a certain video resolution?

Thanks.
Beta Tester - Brother Against Brother
Beta Tester - Commander: The Great War
Beta Tester - Desert War 1940-42
GIveloper
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 pm
Contact:

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

Post by GIveloper »

Hi Slick,
 
Matrixgame.com provides a very good documentation regarding the game, that is for sure.
And resolution:
"The game runs in 1024x768, but your video drivers will generally allow you to adjust how it scales to your monitor." Erik has some notes about that in the Tech threads.
 
Victor.
 
WWII: GC Designer
Post Reply

Return to “World War II: General Commander”