Tris

kevshar wrote: Er... all software, always, all the time can benefit from patching. There is no such thing as "perfect" software, and never will be.

I'm clear on where my FO's were and what they were doing. The unfriendly rounds were definitely "real" and "live," not part of the ambient background. And my opponent isn't playing against me but in a test with me--we exchange information when it seems appropriate.

But that's where the enemy's own troops are. Besides, this is against a human and it's a scenario test. We're in contact. Along the same lines I had explosion sounds the game's thrid turn pretty much in the same place where my own shells are now landing (it's sixth turn at present) but I could never see any explosion effects, could find no shell craters, etc. Worse yet, my opponent claims he didn't fire a thing.

. . . yet the targeted area was filled with explosions from both for nearly the entire 60-second turn. Anyone else seen this? I believe it's the first time I have.

Ace, that's precisely the conclusion I've come to. I sent Matt what saves I still had and he can do what he wants with it. I understand an issue with small buildings, but foxholes are 1) rationalized re "space" and 2) in any event can accomodate full squads so why not two split squads? Besides, that foxhole can accomodate the full squad eventually . . . after they are successfully joined. It's a hole in the system. If, in fact, this is a known issue it ought to have been dealt with before now. If it's something new, now's as good a time as any. By the way, none of these units was under fire, most of them were veteran, two of the squads were crack.

Matt, I've studied this issue somewhat carefully. I've tried variations or orders sets to see if particular commands might trigger this odd behavior (e.g., orering the squad to hide when it gets to its destination if the target squad is also hiding, to hide and rotate, not to hide but rotate). I've considered the possibility that if you order them to rotate then the direction has to be the same (or close) to the other squad orientation, etc. I've gone to both level 2 and level 1 views to micromanage the placement of the final route box so that it ends up directly on top of the target squad--or as close as I can get it. And as I've noted, this only happens in half or so of the cases, so it's not as if I'm unclear on the concept. Look, you guys. this one ought to be easy to replicate at home. Go to it! And like the other guy said, splitting squads during scenario creation is a serious bugaboo. I never bothered to whine on that one as I just assumed this was a known issue and would be taken care of one day. Why that hasn't arrived yet is something I don't know.

I hate to ask this, but . . . which is which?

With the latest version of the game I've experienced problems rejoining split squads. Not only do half (or more) of the groups refuse to rejoin their squad brethren after the two groups have moved back into close proximity with each other, but upon further inspection I notice that about half of these subunits then turn around in the same turn and of their own volition and head back to where they were originally ordered from. In a few cases the originally ordered squad (say, 1b) will stay put where it was ordered to go, while its sibling (1a) gets up and walks back whence 1b came. Has anyone else seen this behavior? Perhaps I'm just tumbling to an old issue now. Was this a problem with earlier versions of the game as well?

Well, you're still mistaken re the Geocities snafu (I don't make this stuff up), but I'm very grateful for your effort to get me the files. I owe you one.

2. If you copy the URL and paste it into a new browser window (or type it per hand), this securing-mechanism does not work - so you can get the file. You're mistaken.

I've read your entire series, Todd, with interest and carefully, I thought. But somehow I missed your entire German recon section (or it came up before I saw your header for the movies) so I went with that intro of yours which alluded to recon but didn't specify. As for the results: yes, this system has huge holes and serious recon's out. You'd have done better--perhaps a bit better--by rationalizing elite sharpshooters as your RT's, but even these guys get spotted rather too easily and die immediately when they are spotted, as a rule. As you note, the AI is ruthless tracking down anything it spots. For the rest: I assumed you would play the Germans on attack to thoroughly test out your defense. AI usually does better with the latter, and I discarded the possibility of you hotseating it. So, you did play the German side, yes? Or is this exercise being conducted versus another human opponent? If you specified all that elsewhere I simply missed it. My apolgies. Anyway, my other question still stands. Having seen the attack develop, would you change the American dispositions in any way or are you satisfied your defense was the best possible?

Geocities wants a username and password. Is there any way you can make this mod available somewhere more accessible?

Todd, a couple of observations. First of all, though, Movie 4 doesn't want to load no matter what I do. This file might have become corrupted on your end saving it or somesuch. The game seems to have issues with saving/exiting PBEM games--something to do with a "cheating" is all I get out of it, according to my conversations with Matt, though I was under the impression this had been rewritten or eliminated altogether. Matt might want to comment further on that. That American 57mm AT sold its life dearly. I found it a bit incredulous that a regular crew already down to three men could reload, acquire and dispatch a second StuG so quickly, however. The fortunes of war? Perhaps. <g> Also, I noticed that one of your second German team's HT's had unloaded its 20mm AA gun? Why? Any thoughts on your part as to the original American dispositions? Finally, that Puma went scooting along the road through all that snow as if it were a NASCAR entrant. What's with that? I was under the impression that speeds in snow would be greatly reduced. Apparently not so. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-25-2001).]

Thanks. I wondered about that command and tried it but with no clear idea as to what to do next. I'm off to watch your movies now. By the way, you didn't answer my question re recon work in your last thread (Part 3). This was rationalized, yes?

Has anyone been able to actually view these movies? Copying the movies and saving them as text files doesn't work here.

Derfel, my error. I meant to write Breakaway not Matrix.

Actually it's SHIFT=CONTROL.

May I ask what "assets" you employed for your intelligence? (I assume you rationalized this as recon conducted beforehand or "off the board" to make the study clearer.) Looking forward to the actual battle.

Hmm, in operations you might be right. Perhaps enemy roadblocks (and minefields and wire) that are in your setup zone should be cleared by the next battle. I disagree. Nothing should be "cleared" from one battle to the next. We are burdened with too much system abstraction as it is. Even in a 60 minute battle, would you ever want to have your engineers spend 30 minutes clearing one roadblock? Seems like a waste when they could be out clearing mines or fighting. Waxx is right, a good scenario designer always gives the attacker more than one route of advance. Even in auto generated maps there's usually a couple of options for attack. I would examine the question from a different perspective: Would it be feasible to design a scenario where the clearance of a roadblock would present one side with an interesting problem in play? I can easily imagine such a scenario. At present it isn't possible, though, to design such a situation. And that's a shame. Why would you suggest that a good scenario designer always affords his audience more than one route of advance? I can just as easily imagine a scenario where only one "best" or even possible route of advance exists. I can also imagine that this scenario might well be enjoyable to play. A comparison of custom-scenario and auto-generated maps strikes me as wholly inappropriate. The latter are dreadful bores as a rule, they never come with creeks or rivers, etc. Open up your mind and explore with it. Then come back with suggestions for how to improve this war simulation. That's what it needs, that's what would benefit all. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-18-2001).]

Within the context of the typical CMBO 30-minute battle I would agree with you, Gustav, that roadblocks present thmeselves in a much more realistic light. But all battles are not of a mere 30 turns, and then we have those pesky Operations to consider as well. All in all roadblocks have not been especially well modelled, and this aspect of play ought to be reconsidered for subsequent editions of the game. That was my message.

It would be nice. I'm afraid the best we presently have to look forward to is the Waterloo title fast approaching from Matrix Games. I don't expect awful good game play from this one as command control has been abstracted to silliness--indeed, one wonders if anything useful has been learned at all (and implemented, of course) from the first two "Sid Meier" Civil War games which used the same basic engine. Perhaps, but I'm not holding my breath. There are several interesting threads which deal with this topic over on the Computer Games Online war forum. www.cdmag.com/ Enjoy! [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-18-2001).]

Thanks for the link to http://www.belleandblade.com/ This store actually has a copy of Zulu Dawn. Unfortunately, there's no note as to whether or not the film is available in widescreen format. I hope it is, I assume it is not. We'll see.

Well, the deeper I get into this engine the more anomalies I find. This is fine to an extent, as it aids me with my work with scenario design, but the frustration I have from time to time dealing with the model's lamentable limitations is not inconsiderable. Today I finally got around to roadblocks. I had yet to see one taken out, either by engineers or infantry with satchel charges, so I conducted a test which confirmed my casual observation: roadblocks are indestructible. Next I did a search to find out what BTS's position on this situation is. Here are a couple of links for anyone with interest: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008767.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004163.html The reality of having indestructible roadblocks presents the scenario designer with several considerations. Getting around the ahistoricity of this approach in most cases (read the comments in the referenced threads re felled-trees versus reinforced-concrete blocks), the first problem to confront designers is this: since roadblocks stay where they're put and represent absolute blocks to vehicular traffic (foot travelers can negotiate up and over roadblocks with negligible movement penalty), it follows that if these obstacles are placed in positions contiguous to other terrain off limits to vehicles than absolute vehicular stops exits with the "road net" in mind. Imagine this map design. On defense you enjoy a ridge line of appreciable height which runs perpendicular to the enemy's line of march. Much of this ground is impassable to vehicles. A single road traverses this ridge line with the line of sight interrupted so that the enemy will be unable to see much farther down this road then the first rise and bend. Knowing this force has mobile assets, you then construct a roadblock at a convenient place along this road which permanently scotches vehicular traffic at a juncture out of line of sight of the enemy. In the subsequent fight the enemy reads the terrain the dutifully heads his vehicles toward this one natural pass of the ridge line, only to eventually find his way is barred. Time lost, perhaps the battle is lost into the bargain. I do not offer this circumstance as a means to confound enjoyable play, neither do I wish to suggest a factor of "gamey play" onto this proceeding. Rather I point out that for the reason that our game's roadblocks are unrealistically durable then these assets must be employed by the scenario designer with care deliberation so as to ensure that game-play examples similar to the above do not occur. So, you wish to make a map with a creek that might be forded in several spots and across which runs a road with a bridge. Say this creek runs from one board edge to another, thus ringing in a section of the map. Further say this map section mainly comprises a setup area for one side. The scenario designer is now faced with a poor choice, imposed on him by our sturdy little roadblocks: should the designer place a roadblock on the road tile directly on either side of the bridge then all vehicular traffic across the creek itself will be denied for the length of the scenario! Thus, it becomes necessary to place the roadblock no closer to the bridge entryway than one tile distant. Unfortunately, this placement (assuming no other terrain is contiguous which would serve in conjunction with the roadblock to form an absolute vehicular block), while it conforms in principle to the purpose of the roadblock (to cause a delay in road traffic at a given point) it disallows the defender to place the block in the most advantageous way he might otherwise have devised. Better, surely, for the defense to have enemy vehicular traffic stopped at the far end of that bridge, where friendly artillery might easily find the range (meanwhile enemy engineers frantically try to clear the block whilel under fire) than to allow these enemy mobile assets an opportunity to cross the bridge, more or less unimpeded, by means of simply snaking around one side or the other of said block. Which brings us back approximately to the ahistorical nature and ultimate game-play significance of this dubious design decision: not only are super-durable roadblocks (in the main, as they were found in WW II) contrary to what history tells us of this period, but because of this design error (compromise) our use in game of these objects of fortification is bound to leave both the scenario designer and the eventual player(s) with saccharine tastes in their mouths. By the way, yet another preposterous feature of . . . The Operational Lines . . . raises its ugly head here (big surprise ): the one way to "defeat" these absolute road stops is in operations when, due to "progress" along the front line (taken as an average, I suppose--this has never been clearly explained to me) the setup area for a follow-on battle might well fall beyond one of these stops, thus allowing play to proceed more reasonably. To intentionally design one's Operation scenarios with this absurdity in mind beforehand strikes me as silly on its face, but I offer it up for what value someone might find in it. My suggestion: re-think roadblocks, and either allow engineers/infantry with satchel charges to destroy these obstacles and/or create a new type of roadblock to better illustrate the sort of indestructibility this fortification at present apparently wants to model. One thing is for sure: what we have now does not function intelligently and so it does a serious tactical model no favors.

His and Mr. Johnson's work is very good. A pity no one's bothered to use Scipio's boards. Perhaps one day the interest will come.

Out of curiosity, Henri, is there an existing wargame system that you advocate for studying attrition & maneuver principles? When confused, go to the masters. In this case, Kevin Zucker's excellent boardgame treatise The Struggle of Nations should clear away many of the clouds which seem to befuddle so many around here regarding the distinction between attrition and maneuver. It has been a curious debate.