Arjuna

Yes IIRC Pat Proctor originally designed the interface using the Action-Subject-Object approach, whereas we used the Subject-Action-Object approach. The former is often used in military appreciations ( and hence by the AI )- ie you work out what you want to do to what and then you work out who should do it. However, when it comes to actually giving orders, I reckon the Subject-Action-Object method is more intuitive. You have to take your hat off to the ProSim boys for recognising that there was a better methodology and adopting it rather than digging their heals in. Right action should be supported.

Tactical Command, Thanks for the feedback. I've asked Paul Scobell to check out the options and feasibility of putting out a demo of COTA with the tutorials and documentation. If it can be done without too much additional development then we'll do so. I'll make an announcement about it on the COTA forum once we've decided - probably in a few weeks. Would you be interested in being a "blind" tester of the demo if we decide to go ahead? Ie check it out before we release it publicly and provide us with some feedback on your experience with it?

JasonC, Strong views on what makes a good operation wargame. I don't know you but from what I have read here I'd say you are a long time wargamer with a lot of experience in board wargames. Being one myself and a board and computer wargame designer I'd say that earns you some respect. You strike me as someone who demands absolute control over all facets of a game - ie you want that god like control over all your units at all time - the type of control most board wargames give you. And they give you this because there are few practical means of doing anything other than this. Good board wargame designs are fun to play, they endeavour to make you, the player, focus on strategy and they provided hours and hours of entertainment value. I know I enjoy them too. If this is what you hanker for in an operational wargame, then your comments are fine. I'm certainly not going to argue against a subjective preference. However, what you fail to acknowledge is that others may have an equally subjective preference to gain something quite different from an operational wargame - ie that they would prefer to gain a realistic appreciation of what it is like to be a real life ( RL ) commander, making realistic decisions with limited data and limited influence and in a battle which continuously unfolds and against an opponent who is not not going to say "over to you, your turn". For if that is what you want then you want high fidelity modelling of time and space, you want limited intel, a hierarchical command structure, orders delay, realistic task and planning doctrine. A traditional turn based wargame ( with a long time interval ( ie greater than a few minutes ) is not going to cut it. It's no accident that simulations used by the military professionals for operational warfare are real time engines. I note you tried our original demo for RDOA and that you wern't impressed. Feedback we got from the demo survey indicated that a lot of people shared your views about the the perception that they were not in control and were just watching a movie play out. That same survey also showed that almost no-one read and played through the tutorial that was provided. So it was no small wonder that they didn't "get it". For traditional turn based wargamers, our system requires a paradigm shift. You have to view things differently, not as some omnipotent god-like controller hovering over the battlefield, but rather as the operational commander operating with limited intelligence and influence. What's more, while it does allow you to control and issue orders to every unit, this is not the best way to get the most out of the game. You need to trust the AI to manage your subordinates. You issue them orders and the AI will do a reasonable job - not always a perfect one but then neither to do real life subordinates. That's not to say you then abandon all responsibility, sit back and watch. For this is not how a good real life commander does his job. No you must monitor progress and be prepared to intervene at the right moment if required. Knowing, anticipating when that moment is, is a key aspect of operational command. In real life the military refer to these as "triggers". A good commander anticipates these when he does his plan - eg, if the enemy attack my vulnerable right flank at X then I need to commit my reserve at Y. Then he monitors developments, continuously assessing if the condition has been met and if so issues the orders to the reserve. The fact that many wargamers failed to appreciate this with the demo was one of the reasons why we did not put another demo when we released HTTR and COTA. Our view was that unless we can make the user aware of this different approach then it's really counterproductive. So we have relied on the slow but steady stream of users finally taking the plunge and buying our games and then posting on our forum that its a truly great wargame experience and they wish they had tried it sooner. Here's the latest from yesterday: noobie post We continuously get requests for a demo. We have released a 5 Minute Guide - a movie with a voice over showing how the game is played - from the COTA website. That has helped many make their decision to buy COTA, but there are many others I suspect want to actually get their hands on the controls to see how it plays. We have been debating whether the time is right now to release a new demo, based on COTA that would include the tutorials and manuals. Those in favour say that yes the wargame community has matured and are willing to invest a little time to actually read and play the tutorials, that they realise that our system is not some "designer's fettish" but needs a paradigm shift to appreciate it. Have we as a community matured to that point? Are we open enough to see things from another perspective? [ March 17, 2007, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Arjuna ]

Hubert, Great to see your forum up and running. Welcome and all the best! Dave PS As soon as we sign off on AA, we'll be trying out your demo. Steve Barnes, our scenario developer, will love it.