Jeff Duquette
-
Posts
1,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jeff Duquette
-
-
I agree with the above posts from Finn and PFMM...lots of nice design aspects are already in this package.
Regarding the stagnation bit: The game also requires an easy and reliable multiplayer capability. I know this has already been said, but I don’t think this aspect of gaming and the entertainment value associated with it can be emphasized enough. Without an easy means of hooking up for online play, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb in saying the game will stagnate in popularity and sales. Put an easy and reliable online game playing capability into the existing package and I think you are potentially looking at a very entertaining and popular game.
-
Just two unrelated comments regarding things I noted during game play. These are unrelated to the scenario design.
1) The ability for gun crews to prolong light ATGs looks real good in the game. Their rate of movement also seems pretty good. I was pleasently surprised to see that the crews will simply push the gun forward for short prolongs; or they will pick up the trails and pull the gun (muzzle to the rear) for longer prolongs. Very nicely done by the game designers. I dunno if crews suffer from fatigue or not during long prolongs.
2) I was also impressed by the ability of the gun shields on the Maxim MG and the light 45mm Paks to provide cover from small arms. Also nicely done by the ToW designers.
-
I'd rather see the Flak 88 included in the Game and Firefly Sherman.
-
The total body count at the end of the game was something like 44 or 46 Germans KIA. But I assume this count also included the off site tank battle.(?)Originally posted by Oudy:Jeff
The Armored cars are reconnoitering towards the village until they see an enemy unit, then they go into defend until the rest of the troops are in place for an advance.
Hmm, Germans are supposed to retreat after losing too many men, it shouldn't be a fight to the last man.
Oudy
Yes it was basically a slaughter fest on both sides. I retained two of the village blocks for most of the game. As the game wouldnt end I prolonged one of my AT guns forward as well as my maxim. These dudes eventually spotted three or four Germans hunkered down in the 3rd block of buildings (the one closest to the German start line). After my AT and Maxim dudes mowed these fellows down, the game suddenly ended in a Soviet Victory.
I'm gonna try the scenario again tonight after work to see if anything else jumps out at me.
The scenario is good, and seems balanced. In the future please feel free to email me at my hotmail account any additional scenarios you design. Thnx.
Jeff
-
Thanks for the MP feedback Rabbit. On the E.Young thing, he used to always use some type of "rabbit" thingie in his forum nom de plums.
-
I know what I wanted to ask...early on in the game there are two German armorded cars that seem to be doing area fire on the village. Was this something you managed to script into the scenario?
-
Fun scenario. Seems well balanced, all though to be fair I only played it once. I actually won, but it was pretty tight. I had only four guys left at the end of the scenario. Unfortunately there was a pesky German hanging out behind one of the buildings -- so the game continued on for a fair period of time while I tracked this determined fellow down and finally killed him.
I liked the tank battle out on the flank that goes on throughout the game. Nice scripting.
-
I'd like to try it.
Email it to:
jeffduquette (at) hotmail (dot) com
Thnx
-
How was the fog of war stuff in multiplayer? Moreover when playing games such as Close Combat in solitaire mode, I always felt like the AI knew alot more than it should. However when playing CC in multiplayer mode the fog of war effects were excellent. You could hide and set up ambushes etc. Do you get this sense from playing ToW in multiplayer? Or do you need to test it a bit more?
On the gaming lobby thing -- totally agree that this sort of thing is essential. It's what made Close Combat such a blast to play.
RabidRabbit: You're not Eric Young are you?
-
I have to agree. The games good -- but has alot of issues. One of the biggest problems is lack of online multiplayer capability. These sorts of games sink or swim based upon the ability of gamers to easily hook-up and play on line. A happy gamer tells friends they need to get this game...and friends tell friends. Luke warm gamers aren't likely to pass the word along to buy such-and-such game. Now multiplayer might be added -- but for an additional cost? It will be interesting to see how that business strategy plays out with respect to the future success of this game.Originally posted by RabidRabbit:Having to pay to get a working multiplayer component to the game? Grrrr . . . I must bite my tongue because I want to say many things and none of them are nice.
As far as multiplayer being advertised as deathmatch . . . I haven't noticed too many people having much success with that aspect either.
-
Hi Oudy:
Good observation. Totally agree that annihilation would be an atypical result rather than the norm. Pinning a precise number down will always be subject to debate. Moreover as soon as someone tosses out a hard and fast number, someone else will invariably point out that such-and-such unit lost 75% at the battle of blah-blah-blah and were still fighting like devils – or whatever. I think your percentages are defensible, and tend to make far more sense than battles of total annihilation.
Here is some additional information on the subject that a guy could use – or chuck into the trash…
From Danny Parker’s “Battle of the Bulge” (although I think Parker derived the information from T.N. Dupuy).
The above casualty percentiles are keyed to division level formations – i.e. high ratio of tail to teeth troops. He goes on to indicate that battalion level formations might sustain casualty rates as much as 20% greater than a division level formation before the unit becomes relatively ineffective in either attack or defense. Maneuver battalions invariably being almost all teeth and no tail. For ToW purposes I think the battalion level rates are more appropriate considering the scale of the game. Moreover your 40 to 50% casualty rate at which a unit become combat ineffective looks pretty reasonable.“The rates are important since they determine how long a unit can sustain combat before it “breaks”. An attacking unit will likely break when it sustains more than 25% casualties in an action. This will make it unfit for further attack for a period 48-hours. At a level of casualties of greater than 30% in a defending action, the formation will break and be unable to stop further enemy attacks for at least 24-hours.”I suppose ideally one would apply some level of randomization and vary the rate at which a unit cracks. For example, perhaps a unit that has suffered 25% casualties has a 20% (or whatever) probability of becoming combat ineffective (scenario ends). A unit that has suffered 50% casualties has an 80% (or whatever) probability of becoming combat ineffective (scenario ends).
Best Regards
Jeff
[ May 20, 2007, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
I kinda liked the HIDE command in the old Atomic game Close Combat. I'd like to see something similar in ToW if possible. I think if done properly a "HIDE" command would add much to the usefulness of Infantry in the game.
-
Select the tank -- than right click. At the bottom of the little pull down menu will be a "add crew" option. Another thing your gonna wanna do is make sure your new vehicle has ammo. Go to the "backpackset" -- left click in the cell to the right of the "backpackset" cell. A little button with three dots on it will appear. Click on it and select "mixed". You can alter the basic ammo load-out\default load-out by typing in different quantites under the Group-2 stuff in the backpack area. Course you can't exceed max allowable load-out that the tanks ready racks can handle. So you could give one of your Panther 79-HE -- or 79pzgr -- or 79 APCR -- or some mixture.
-
I did the mandatory forum search, but couldn’t get any hits regarding tanks and hull down positions. I assume this sort of thing is relatively difficult to code, but I thought I would ask anyway. Does the games ballistic modeling allow a tank to gain some advantage from hull down positions? Moreover, can I creep up to a crest line of a ridge such that only the turret is exposed to hits? (Target profile is reduced and hit probability reduced).
-
Very good. Thanks Webwing. This answers many of the questions I had regarding use of the editor.
-
I'd like to give the scenario a whirl. However I have attempted on several occassions to register with your web page, but never receive a confirmation response -- so I can never log-in. Is the web page registration for Star Bellied Sneetches only?
-
This would be a nice addition to the Sealow Heights scenario. There are two German AT guns that appear early on in the scenario. They are both initially limbered. First time I played the scenario I didn't even know they were there until Soviet tank fire had already destroyed both guns and their tractors -- while the guns were still limbered up.
I played the scenario several additional times and I reckon I was able to get these dudes to unlimber and start shooting maybe 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time they were being KO'd by tank fire before my rapid click fest could get these guys out of their tractors and get the AT guns up and ready for shooting.
-
Oudy:Originally posted by Oudy:Jeff
If you are placing your own troops for initial deployment, you have to use placeholders. In the Mission Tree under ArmyComposition you will find Placeholders. You must have one for each of your initial units.
Wherever you place enemy troops or reinforcements is where they will spawn.
Hope that helps.
Oudy
I was playing with the editor today and noticed that I could position new units directly from the map in the scenario editor. Moreover if I add a new unit to a group, the unit will appear at something like X=1024 and Y=720 -- or some such thing. You will see a little red symbol appear on the map as soon as you add a detachment or tank to a group. You can highlight the new unit with a mouse box. Than click on the unit and drag it to whatever position you like on the map. I just did this with the "Steel Torrent" scenario and it seemed to work pretty slick.
-
OK...that seems to work. I think the movement I was seeing is spin. I know this has been disscussed already on this forum. If there are threats in the near vicinity my vehicles will turn or neutral steer to face the new threat. I was just looking at this. Unfortunately tanks in HOLD will neutral steer toward an infantry target or even a retreating crew. While I understand the intent of the AI in doing this spin thing, it sometimes puts a tank in a compromised position when a real threat suddenly appears -- like another tank. I could see this sort of thing being used as a goofy tactic to expose a tanks flank or rear during multiplayer games. That is assuming I can ever hook up for a multiplayer gameOriginally posted by Mannheim Tanker:Order them to hold position and they will stay put. [/QB]
-
Excellent games. My bro actually did all the scenarios and scenario scripting for the second game of the series.Originally posted by Gunslingr3:I would like to make a small suggestion. In the Take Command Civil War games each unit had a button that let you 'Take Command' of the unit, which disabled most of the friendly tactical AI routines that are bedeviling me in this game.
Agreed. There is brilliance at work in this design. But there is also several truely horrible blunders in this design.I like this game, it has loads of promise, but I hope this idea can be taken into consideration and perhaps in some way implemented, because I find fighting my own troops more difficult than the enemy.[/qb]The roots of an excellent game are here. Hopefully the rough edges can be smoothed out.
[ May 18, 2007, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
I do this alot during my games. Unfotunately if I have one of my units target an enemy icon that my unit can't see yet, there is the tendency for my unit to leave its position and move toward the targeted icon in an attempt to get a shot.Originally posted by PFMM:A usefull tip, you can target obscured icons. Right click on an obscured target and it will be tracked by the unit.
-
Yup...Although it's also nice to have the option for a larger scenario if a person is so inclined. As I recall Close Combat used to have a limit of 12 or 15 units total per side per scenario. This seemed to work pretty well.Originally posted by Jim Cobb:I actually think ToW would work better with smaller scenarios - a couple of platoons and a vehic;e or two. The innovative mechanics cry for micromanaging; they're a waste otherwise. I'll micromange 25 units but anymore makes the game a pause dance and might as well have been WEGO or turn-based.
I think a players tendency toward feeling a bit overwhelmed -- or the tendency toward conducting a continual pause fest -- is the preception that ones units are constantly on the verge of, or actually taking off or spining about on their own initiative. I can see the need for this loss of player control for units under fire or when morale breaks, but I don't see the logic for this sort of behavior as a default thing.
My initial excitement about the HOLD command has dwindeled as I have played a few more scenarios. I keep seeing men or vehicles wondering off, or spinning around on their own. I feel like I have more control by using HOLD. But as I say I am still seeing stuff wondering about even when under a HOLD command.
[ May 18, 2007, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
Thanks. That was helpful. Don't think I would have figured that one out.Originally posted by Oudy:Jeff
If you are placing your own troops for initial deployment, you have to use placeholders. In the Mission Tree under ArmyComposition you will find Placeholders. You must have one for each of your initial units.
Wherever you place enemy troops or reinforcements is where they will spawn.
Hope that helps.
Oudy
=================
Hey John. How goes the behind armor effects battle
-
Never mind -- I think I got it. Move the mouse curser over the scenario map. The X and Y coordinates appear in the lower left corner of the editor screen. I assume you than simply find the spot you wanna stick your new dudes via the curser, than simply enter the X and Y coordinates into the editor box over on the right side of the screen. Silly me.
Request for a couple of testers for new mission
in Theatre of War
Posted
Ok – second time I played the game ended after the Germans suffered 24-KIA and lost one of the attacking armored cars – Soviet Victory. I could only get one of my Pak 45mm’s to limber. But I managed to get it into a decent position behind the village and kept the German Armored Cars and their infantry at bay – mostly from the Pak fire.
Third time I played I was slaughtered. I couldn’t get either of my Pak 45mm’s to limber onto their transports. I was trying to prolong them to the village, but the German armored cars got into the village and began systematically destroying all my infantry before I could get the guns up.
I’m having a heck of a time trying to get my two 45mm Paks to limber onto their transports. Getting the two guns into position to support the Russian Infantry is key to holding the village. I’ll admit I’m a retard – what the heck does a guy need to do to get his guns to hitch up onto the trucks?
I noticed that if I select either of the guns during setup I can’t get the mouse to let go of the gun. Sorta weird.