Jump to content

choppinlt

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About choppinlt

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Bulletpoint! If you are referring to the attached list in terms of scope creep, then no I don't believe that is the case. Most things on that list is a unit characteristic that impacts game algorithms in different ways. While game mechanics have evolved, the core scope of the game has been the same since I made this announcement. Much of what is seen on the forum are deep explanations on many of the different game concepts and characteristics. You ask if I have considered a simple version to push units around? No that is not under consideration for a variety of different reasons. I am using Vassal to create the mock-up images for the test scenario, but I have not set it up to have any deeper functionality than to generate pictures. Vassal may be of some use to you, and do some or all of what you are talking about. BFC has long told me that their market analysis tells them that the demand for a campaign layer to their CM games is not high enough to justify the risk and the cost of producing one. My recent experience backs up what they were telling me, so it is best to create something that can reach a wider market in hopes of making something close to sustainable. That is why my goal has been to create a standalone operational level game that has features built in to allow flexibility for playing out tactical battles. In other words if I can appeal to multiple niche markets then we have a chance.
  2. @Artkin and @socalgiven, thanks for the messages. Keep in mind that Theater of Operations (ToO) will be designed as a standalone operational level game. It will NOT simply be a campaign layer for CM like CMC was, but that really is a good thing for a number of reasons. It just so happens that I am designing ToO with CM in mind. I also agree that ToO can totally transform the CM experience, hence my motivation for doing this. It will remove the all or nothing feel of CM battles. While that is certainly A LOT of fun, having a bigger picture will transform the battlefield calculus. @socalgiven, help is always appreciated! The help this project needs most is getting a lead programmer! We lost our lead programmer a few months ago right when we were looking to make some real progress. We can use a number of different types of game development disciplines for those that may be interested. Thanks, Matt
  3. It’s been awhile since I have updated this forum, and a lot has happened. We have formed a company called BBG with 3 programmers (2 part time and 1 full time lead programmer) along with various other volunteers, and we have been working on a small project for a publisher to cut our teeth before fully getting in to Theater of Operations. Indie projects are a house of cards, and this is no different. Our lead programmer left due to other obligations and we are basically in a holding pattern until we find a new lead programmer(s). If you or someone you know would be interested in helping out then please send me a message through this forum or email me at choppinlt@gmail.com Experience with Unity is a big plus. Quick refresher on what this project is about: Theater of Operations (ToO) will be an operational level game designed to allow players to play out battles using Combat Mission. Call it a battle generator, operational layer, a campaign system, or whatever you like. Come over to our forum to learn lots more about this project: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html Matt
  4. Most battles are resolved using the combat resolution system for ToO, therefore most battles are NOT fought out at the tactical level. For any engagement that people want to play out using a tactical system (like CM), players may do so. In fact you can use any tactical system you want. For instance in the latest round of combat in the operational scenario I am doing, one person is using Advanced Squad Leader to resolve a tactical battle. Another person wants to fight a tactical battle using CM and is looking for an opponent. IanL and Mad Mike resolved the battle in this AAR thread. Then I can take the results and plug them in to the operational layer (ToO). Does this make sense? Again, feel free to check out the dogsofwarvu.com forum in my footer.
  5. Hi @Erwin, IanL is correct. We renamed the game to Theater of Operations some time after the Kickstarter. There is tons of information on our forum regarding the project. Recently a gaming blog ran 2 articles on ToO and the link is on my forum. The plan is for 2 independent games, but the eventual goal is an automated link between the games. However lots of things need to happen first before that could ever become a reality. Nothing is stopping a manual link between the games (hence this AAR), but players just have to do some grunt work. So check out the thread that IanL linked here on this forum, and check out our main forum (linked below).
  6. Hey I just wanted to let you guys know that another round of battles have started. I have a guy looking for a CM opponent to resolve a battle, If you are interested in resolving a battle come over to the forum at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html -Matt
  7. @IanL and @Mad Mike great battle to the both of you, and thank you so much for volunteering! And a special thanks to IanL for this brilliant AAR! So we have some options to discuss, but let's keep the most of the campaign level discussion on the other forum. I encourage anyone that wants to follow along or join the discussion you may do so at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html . I will add that a new 'combat day' is getting ready to kick off and anyone wanting to participate to play out battles may do so by going to the forum and volunteering when the message is sent out.
  8. @snare for clarification, the game is called Theater of Operations. You can read more about it on a post in this forum. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109632-operational-level-game-announcement/ This CM scenario is part of an early manual beta test of TOO. So we are far along in terms of game design, mechanics, and algorithms. HOWEVER in terms of computer development (i.e. coding) we are NOT very far along. In short we need to develop interest and gain exposure because we need to find a funding source to create this game. We have the technical expertise, but this is a large complex project that requires a massive amount of time. So we need funding to dedicate our programmers full-time, otherwise development probably will never be completed. We are attempting to gain in exposure in a number of ways, that I won't talk about now. We have lots of information and updates on our forum located at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html, and we are always looking for feedback and volunteers with the proper skill sets! @IanL this is great my friend! I am looking forward to seeing more!
  9. @IanL it's fun to watch the battle unfold. I appreciate the effort of putting all these pictures up. The screenshots are great, but I love the map view visuals! As stated earlier, it does make me feel I am right there. Oh, and I hope @Mad Mike is taking good notes on what is going on with his forces so he can had some of the German perspective at the end of the battle! AGREED!! I don't know if there is anything that frustrates me quicker! @Christian Knudsen you talked earlier about the prongs vs the hedgerow cutters. That is a subtle detail that I never really caught, but it is quite significant! You are correct that in my reference material they make explicit mention of the prongs in great detail during 2/116's attack on 11Jul. The amount of detail leaves little doubt about the accuracy of the report. Interestingly, I seem to recall some reference material for a different unit, and they mentioned using cutters on the same day. Makes me curious if some units used them on 11Jul OR the other unit just didn't put much effort for accuracy in their reporting. I have to go back and find the material... Oh and thanks for the LtCol Mildren report, you are correct that is a great resource I had not come across!
  10. Hi all, this has been a lot of fun and interesting to accomplish transitioning from operational to setting up a battle. I would first like to thank @Christian Knudsen for being the first volunteer to set up a battle. He threw me a curve ball when he wanted to do it using ASL! But hey, it was a great learning experience for us both and he went on to do A LOT of work regarding setting up battle using ASL. This will have great benefits later. Next I would like to thank @IanL and @Mad Mike for volunteering to set a battle up using CM. This was the first real attempt to convert an ongoing, dynamic campaign engagement in Theater of Operations to a CM battle. There were some areas of improvement identified, which is to be expected, but overall I thought it went well. Regarding CMPzC, it will be interesting to hear your comparisons and thoughts. I have a very basic understanding of how CMPzC works. Keep in mind that I had transitioning to CM part of my design with Theater of Operations (TO). I freely admit that battle transitioning is a bit cumbersome at the moment, because we are doing most things manually. Some people won't mind this, but many will (which is no different than CMPzC). When TO is ready it will include an option for each engagement for players to receive all transitioning information in a CM format to make transitioning to CM battles a simple process. There will still be manual scenario editing...until BFC works with us on an automated system (check out the "Operational Level Game Announcement" thread for more information on this aspect). And finally, my design assumption is that many/most engagements will not be played out manually. The amount of time and effort to do this would be immense...however nothing is stopping players from doing it. With this in mind, TO has a very robust battle resolution system to resolve battles quickly and easily. In this way players can resolve less interesting battles (or time won't allow manual resolution) and still go on with the campaign. In fact TO is a complete standalone game, and you don't have to resolve any battles manually if you don't want to. Regarding the CM map discussion, that would be AWESOME to have auto generated maps...just like in CMx1, but I seem to recall discussion from BFC stating it was far too much effort to accomplish vs the cost involved. Hopefully something will change, but short of that then we will have to use generic maps OR map makers will have to help. We can make great use of large maps. Map makers can create the large maps and players can 'cut out' and use only the parcels of land that they need to fight their engagement.
  11. Tactical, Good point. I have already engaged their community in a number of ways, but I havn't done it recently. I can explicitly offer them a chance to play test a conversion. Thanks for the suggestion.
  12. CK, you truly get it! You are exactly right, the more support we gain the more attractive an automated interface between Theater of Operations and CM becomes to BFC. The public who is interested doesn't have to agree with the process, or like the process, but this is the only way an automated campaign layer is going to happen (according to BFC). CK, thanks again for your support thus far and being brave enough to help play test with converting to ASL! You have been more help than you know. For the rest of you, feel free to check out our forum and keep tabs on how the project is evolving. -Matt
  13. For those that are interested I wanted to mention that I am currently doing the AAR. It focuses on the US 29th Infantry Division trying to take St. Lo. The AAR is being executed manually (i.e. I act as the computer using various spreadsheets to evaluate results, create visuals, and explain what is happening) until we get an alpha version prepared, but it still highlights the various capabilities and concepts involved. For instance there are 2 players taking the role of the Americans plus a German player. Of particular interest to you may be the ability to play out interesting battles using your favorite tactical system (e.g. Combat Mission).Currently we have a volunteer who wants to fight one of the tactical battles with Advanced Squad Leader! If you are interested in helping to play out a battle with Combat Mission or a different game system, come over and let me know! Feel free to stop over and take a look at: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html
  14. Chromecast is certainly something to consider...of course we are still just slowly plugging away at getting a pc demo first! At the moment things are progressing quite slowly on the development front. I was hoping to have it ready by April, but clearly that didn't happen. When we get a demo ready we will be ready to attempt a kickstarter campaign to obtain the funds for full-time programming. It will be the same programmers, but it will allow them to dedicate themselves full-time without other distractions. Feel free to stop by the forum and check out what has been happening at: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html At the moment we are in a holding pattern to start an AAR for a battle. This could change any day now....
  15. @IICptMillerII Thank you...I should have done the videos long ago, but better late than never! I have played around with Vassal quite a bit, and it is a great system. It does have its limitations though. Originally I started designed ToO for vassal, but I decided to take it further. Regarding modern, you may want to check out Flashpoint Campaigns by Matrix Games. I have never played it, but it really does look good. I realize it does you no good right now, but I hope to expand up through '80's Cold War, and perhaps beyond. Just some food for thought...
×