eichenbaum Posted August 22, 2003 Author Share Posted August 22, 2003 <CENTER> New Operation Störfang Interface Preview</P> </P> </CENTER> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Shouldn't there be more swastikas, or sumfink? Looks nice, if a little clean and tidy. Perhaps move the maps closer, or even touching. If I had to use them, that gap would drive me nuts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 22, 2003 Author Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Shouldn't there be more swastikas, or sumfink? Looks nice, if a little clean and tidy. Perhaps move the maps closer, or even touching. If I had to use them, that gap would drive me nuts No, please no swastikas. I think its nice enough without them. The bunker is still under construction. For the people who are interested ; 3ds max 5 Its still clean here but will certainly going to look like a bombed bunker. In the empty gap comes a desk. It's a preview. The final result will look different. Eichenbaum [to much wine ] [ August 21, 2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I was kidding about the 'tikas I meant the gap between the two map sheets, not the gap on the floor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 22, 2003 Author Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: I meant the gap between the two map sheets, not the gap on the floor. Hehhehe... well one tiny square on those maps is 2 x 2 kilometres. You won't even notice that the gap is even there The items in the picture will be click-able. If you click on the table in the front you'll get a tactical map (without the gap ) And clicking on the topographic maps will display you a 3d view of Sevastopol. Clicking on the door you'll exit the menu... etc... etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 I agree with JonS the gap between the two wall maps looks a little odd ! Some war paraphanalia would add to the atmosphere too, like a schmeisser hanging on the wall, or a helmet on the table. Personally i would prefer a CP type interior more in keeping with a German army rapidly on the move, like a wooden bunker strewn with maps and wirelesses. The command post bunker in the film 'Cross of Iron' would be a good indicator ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by JaegerMeister: like a schmeisser hanging on the wall, or a helmet on the table.Schmeisser ? Do you know how many polygons are needed for a nice detailed weapon like that ? Helmets, hats and jackets would be nice. I have bought a Heinkel He 111 model kit today. It will be my next 3d model. A small introduction movie would be nice I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 I'm wondering if any one is waiting for the release of A2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Mission A1 - Swartzekätze has been downloaded 920 times (1 June - 24 August). Mission B1 - Carcenov on the other hand 38 times (28 July - 24 August). Most of the reactions about Operation Störfang were positive. So a few questions have risen about these kind of missions... </font>Are these missions too big for a campaign ? Maybe it takes too long to finish a battle, after that its nice to play something else ?</font>Does B1 have the same qualities as A1 ? Maybe the surroundings of B1 isn't as nice as the 1st mission A1. Does this matter somehow ?</font>How important is micro management ? I can understand that if micromanagement does get important these missions will take a long time to finish.</font>When should we launch mission A2 ? A2 is being tested right now. How quick should we deploy new missions ?</font> Maybe these are a lot of questions but we find it important to level up with the players. We're not making a campaign for our selves but for those who are interested in playing it. Eichenbaum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Eichenbaum, I have been a longtime player of CMBO and BB, and I think that your work is really praiseworthy. Excellent research, fantastic maps, interesting forces are just a few of the highlights. That said I downloaded A1, looked at it lovingly, tried to play it, and abandoned it. For some of us, this is just too massive an operation. After you are finished with this project, however, I would love you to create a similar campaign but of much more limited size - say “small” or “medium” rather than “super-huge”. Obviously it would only be part of a larger battle, but I still think that it would be a worthwhile project: many of us (and there are a lot) that only play “small” and “medium” size scenarios - mainly because we LOVE micromanagement - would be thrilled for such a campaign. Keep up the great work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Meyer Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Your OPs are awesome, no doubt about it. the thing is, the maps are way to big for lot of peopl. It takes several minutes sometimes to calculate the AI moves and when you plot your own moves it takes forever as the map lags when you move around. If the maps were a bit smaller, it would be much better and easier to play the battles. though once I get my system to an AMD 2500XP 333mhz FSB computer, it won't matter anymore, haha. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Here here to Lassners praise for all your hard work !..However, i am enjoying these battles because they ARE large! For once we get to use recon elements properly to scout the terrain and locate enemy positions, before deploying our forces off the march, ready to engage or take out enemy fortifications. Having 3km maps gives opportunites to deploy in battle formations and try differing avenues of attack. Not to mention the realistic and varying terrain that you get to encounter and fight over, presenting you with the sort of dilemnas a commander of that time may have faced (without the lice!), like advancing down a mountain road with no room for deploying or fighting off partisans in large forests etc. There are certain turns (in A1)that seem long for the AI, but read a book whilst you wait! I have only got a P3 1.4 and the battles move reasonably okay on that. These bigger battles present new challenges to us commanders and i'm all for that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Well thanks a lot for all the praise. Also on behalf of the scenario testers Your reactions have raised another question : </font>What is the definition of a huge scenario ?</font> Take A1 for example. It's a 9 km2 area where you can fight with a total 7 infantry company's, 15 tanks and some additional units in a 80 minutes battle. What aspects does this make it a huge battle ? The amount of units, the map ? Eichenbaum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Meyer Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 To me, it is the map. The ammount of units is not an issue on my system. However, the map being 9km2 is a problem. That is what hangs my system or causes it to lag when I move around the map. In A1 there are not that many units. I have played battles with multiple battalions even regiments and smaller maps 2-3km2 maps and it wasn't bad at all. And it did not take THAT long to compute. With these huge maps, it's a different story. To me, HUGE means a big freagin map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfenwolf Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Well I have startet to learn 3dmax and so i can imagine how much work this was. I like the settings of the light source and the shadows, they coming all with the right angel. Looks very proffesional. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by Elfenwolf: Well I have startet to learn 3dmax and so i can imagine how much work this was. I like the settings of the light source and the shadows, they coming all with the right angel. Looks very proffesional. Well thank you Elfenwolf! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ligur Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by eichenbaum: Most of the reactions about Operation Störfang were positive. So a few questions have risen about these kind of missions... </font>Are these missions too big for a campaign ? Maybe it takes too long to finish a battle, after that its nice to play something else ?</font>Does B1 have the same qualities as A1 ? Maybe the surroundings of B1 isn't as nice as the 1st mission A1. Does this matter somehow ?</font>How important is micro management ? I can understand that if micromanagement does get important these missions will take a long time to finish.</font>When should we launch mission A2 ? A2 is being tested right now. How quick should we deploy new missions ?</font> Eichenbaum Just downloaded B1 since I advanced far enough in the first two battles of A1. And I will surely play it to the finish anyway. First off, I would like to answer some of your questions since I enjoy Operation Storfang a lot, at least this far I have [*]Are these missions too big for a campaign ? Moot question; since Storfang is made the way it is at the moment, players who really get into it are ready to invest a lot of time. On the other hand it can be "unmooted" (heh) by reducing the time it takes to complete each square. For example, have you considered breaking the formula and making it possible to advance two squares further instead of one in one operation or maybe giving the player a choice on where to advance, meaning B1 or A2 without having to play both, thereby creating a more dynamic campaing. If you already haven't done this, all of it can be easily implemented IMHO. Just make another access code available in the farthest reach of the map, in case someone really wants to push long and hard but in the end gain an advantage of advancing faster in the future. Also, some maps could be due to various "circumstance" (in the campaing "story line") only one or two battles instead of four. I'm sure you've thought of all this before though. Infact works like that even now, as you can advance to the next grid in only two battles or so, but the remaining battles of a square will compell players to finish it! Thereby investing a lot of time and maybe creating a scare for the next op. And you could make it more complicated and dynamic by giving a chance to move into B1 OR B2 for the next battle depending on success. You know what I mean. Another point, the massive involvement in time will reduce the number of players who will continue this campaign untill the bitter end. A1 and the whole idea of this campaing was welcomed very well as you can see (900 downloads is a lot!) but some players, like a few of the previous posters, are staggered by it due to the investment of time it involves. I like it the way it is myself though, but you could introduce more variables that may reduce total playing time. [*]Does B1 have the same qualities as A1 ? Despite giving A1 two whole evenings (and getting the code as the reward) I still haven't even started B1. I want to finish A1 first, even if it takes a whole lot of time and I already "won" the recon action part. So the answer to this I don't know. [*]How important is micro management ? I am not quite sure what you mean. But in the A1 battles I have finished this far giving meticulous, loving care with your troops makes the games easier to win and thus makes all the on-field micro very usefull. But I'm a very fast player anyway, I take about 5 mins for 1000 points to give orders in average. For example I was able to use the Romanians to great effect in the first battle of A1 because I took a lot of time to arrange them in good positions but when I did the effect rewarded me greatly. [*]When should we launch mission A2 ? IMHO two weeks between missions is a good schedual. Not super fast, allowing some testing, but players who invest a lot of time can manage a mission in two weeks easy. Heck, it only took two days for me to finish A1. Anyway, I applaud and greatly appreciate the work you have put into this campaing and wish it will continue further. I've had tons of fun this far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ligur Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by eichenbaum: Well thanks a lot for all the praise. Also on behalf of the scenario testers Your reactions have raised another question : </font>What is the definition of a huge scenario ?</font> Take A1 for example. It's a 9 km2 area where you can fight with a total 7 infantry company's, 15 tanks and some additional units in a 80 minutes battle. What aspects does this make it a huge battle ? The amount of units, the map ? Eichenbaum Time invested makes a battle huge. THe 9 km2 area makes the AI occasionally chain about 1000000 orders and the calculations take very very long (at list this is what I suspect? anyone know?). You could slap a similar force on a typical "small" QB map and I'd call it a medium size battle. I've played on smaller maps with a whole lot larger force and my puter has calculated the turns faster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 If the calculation of the turn gets longer when the map is getting bigger then it seems to me that the proper use of a 'battle-window' is important. A 'battle window' of 2km will result in a 6km2 on a 3x3km map. Without it you'll end up with 9km2. If so, then should the calculation time of B1 being shorter then A1. The battlewindow in B1 is much smaller. Has anyone noticed the difference in the calculation time ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 Operation Storfang will sure be continued! Because of the changes we're working on I'm trying to find the kind of scenarios that most of the CM players would like to play. It doesn't give that much fun if players only go for the 1st battle and don't want to play any follow ups. That's not the definition of a campaign and it would be a waist of time. The new strategic map will look much different from the version you've seen so far. The size of the CM map will be adapted to the surroundings and will not just be a square of 3x3 km. Also will the use of the 'Battle Window' be more important to keep the actual size of the CM maps to a minimum. If the player has done well he'll always have seen the whole map in the end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 Ligur, The dynamic campaign you were talking about was already on the list (and in development). But the interface that makes this possible isn't finished yet. Tracking the players moves on the strategic map is essential. Once a decision is made (choosing to take A2 instead of B1 for example) it should be prohibited to undo the choice. Only one password is needed for each scenario. The choises can be made after entering the access codes. This system also brings a lot of extra work because we need to build the reactions to the player's moves to. For example only playing A1, B1, C1, and D1, then the player gets isolated on the map and the interface would respond to that. This will result in different versions of one scenario. So, we're working on that but I can't do any promises. It's a hell of job, but I like it Eichenbaum ps. ...and thanks for those reply's! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Point of clarification in light of recent responses: what I mean by a “huge” scenario has far less to do with map size (though that is an issue) and far more to do with quantity of forces. Many of us simply do not enjoy playing scenarios in excess of, say 2000 points per side. Indeed, speaking for myself and some of the people with whom I play, 1500 points per side is the largest scenario that we will play. We play CMBO and CMBB *because* we like to micromanage but we do not want turns to take more than, say, 10 - 20 minutes to plot. Now I know that there are players of CMBO and BB who love these mongo-sized scenarios, and certainly Operation Störfang in its current form is perfect for them. What I would like to see is Eichenbaum’s idea for a campaign (that is the map grids that equate to operations for each grid) scaled down in unit size, where the player is just fighting part of a larger battle. In other words the forces for the player would be, say, two companies of troops and a platoon of self-propelled guns on a smaller map. I certainly understand if this does not interest you Eichenbaum, and my post is not meant as a criticism. I really do love your ideas for a campaign, if in scaled-down form. This post is mostly just a plea for a scaled-down campaign from a designer (yourself) who has quite a lot of talent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by lassner: ... I certainly understand if this does not interest you Eichenbaum, and my post is not meant as a criticism...I do not fear criticism. Your reply is welcome in any form. Your ideas and of others are important to me. All the posts will certainly have influence on the development of Operation Störfang. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I am glad to hear that Eichenbaum, but, as I indicated, my post is really a "wish" for those of us who like less unit denisty, but would like a more dynamic and compelling combat environment. Either way, keep up the good work - you have really innovated with this project! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Wittman Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Allo, although it takes my "PC" a couple of minutes to process the "AI" I don't mind because I like the dynamics of the large battle! Just wondering though, do we go from Map "B1" to "A2" or from Map "B1" to Map "C1" ??!!! Keep up the good work!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.