Jump to content

ASL Veteran

Members
  • Content Count

    4,977
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from bobo in Panther firing animation way way too bouncy...   
    As I recall BFC stated that it was intentionally done that way as a way for the player to have more visual stimulation of something 'happening' when the tank fires or something along those lines.  Anyway, it's not an oversight but rather a deliberate thing included in the game.
  2. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Probus in HEADLINE: July 4th, 1944, Hitler Assassinated! Third Reich Surrenders to the West! [HYPOTHETICAL]   
    Binkov Battlefields did a decent overview of this hypothetical - at least this one was much more reasonable and well thought out than any of the others I found.
     
  3. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Sgt Joch in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  4. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from IanL in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  5. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from George MC in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  6. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Bud Backer in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  7. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  8. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Freyberg in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  9. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  10. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from c3k in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  11. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Howler in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  12. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Badger73 in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
    Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  
  13. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper   
    Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.
    How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?
    Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     
  14. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper   
    Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.
    How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?
    Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     
  15. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from theforger in Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper   
    Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.
    How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?
    Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     
  16. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from George MC in Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper   
    Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.
    How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?
    Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     
  17. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Combatintman in Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper   
    Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.
    How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?
    Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     
  18. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from sPA505 in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    the ARMA player video is probably the one that can be found on the video tab when you click on the Shock Force game on Steam.  It has something like 83k views in one or two days when I last checked.
  19. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Reverend Crass in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    An engine upgrade would be CM3.  Hopefully that will show up eventually.
  20. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Bud Backer in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    That alone makes the move worthwhile 😁
  21. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from George MC in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    That alone makes the move worthwhile 😁
  22. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Fleeting moment 2nd scenario design error   
    On the victory screen shot only one check mark shows so only one victory condition was completed.  I assume that was one of the attacker's victory conditions - so obviously not terrain or a unit objective.  What was the objective that you were able to achieve, was it just a parameter objective?  Theoretically if you had a parameter objective of keeping say, fifty percent of your force alive and you get half the total points for that, then that could cause the cease fire situation becoming a victory for you.  Especially if the defender has no terrain objectives and perhaps has a parameter objective that is the opposite of yours.
    It also appears from the in game shot that the Americans are all sitting on terrain objectives (probably yours) but from the victory screen it would appear that the Americans don't get any points for sitting on those objectives, so they must only be objectives for you (attacker) otherwise the Americans would have gained points for them - and yet they gain no points for anything.
  23. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Fleeting moment 2nd scenario design error   
    If the scenario is a defensive scenario then you would naturally start on the objectives and get points for them while the AI attacker would have to try and take the objectives.  That's going to happen if you immediately ceasefire with any scenario that you are defending in.  I'm assuming that you are the defender in that scenario, although I'm not familiar with that battle in specific.  If you are attacking and you get a major victory when you ceasefire immediately then yeah, something is wrong.  Not so much if you are the defender though since, by selecting ceasefire you never give the AI an opportunity to capture the objectives.
  24. Upvote
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Something Very Wrong with LOS Through Trees   
    MikeyD might be overstating it a bit, but I have watched videos of players playing a scenario who say nothing when they get the drop on the enemy but complain bitterly whenever the enemy gets the drop on them - sometimes within the same minute of action.  It's just the nature of the beast - selective memory.
  25. Like
    ASL Veteran got a reaction from Howler in Something Very Wrong with LOS Through Trees   
    MikeyD might be overstating it a bit, but I have watched videos of players playing a scenario who say nothing when they get the drop on the enemy but complain bitterly whenever the enemy gets the drop on them - sometimes within the same minute of action.  It's just the nature of the beast - selective memory.
×
×
  • Create New...