Wild Bill Wilder Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Just so you PBEM'ers know. We have kept you definitely in mind in the design of firefights and the bigger battles. You will find most of these scenarios can easily be played from either or both sides. Now that is no easy feat, but we have a great team of scenario designers (11 of them) and 18 testers working nearly around the clock to hone the edge on these babies. You've been disappointed with the scenarios in games before. Believe me, you won't this time. No boasting, just fact. Get ready for the fights of your gaming life! ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hi Bill Did you guys test these as solo games against the AI? How did it do on the average? ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Check out my Combat Mission Beta Demo Tweaked Textures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Wild Bill, I would be more than happy to test all of these scenarios against the AI. Of course you will have to trick BTS into sending me the latest build of the game. Craig (from the land of benevolent? dictatorship) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rune Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Well, will let you know how I test. I play each side 2 times, playing against the AI. First time through I play to win, the second time through trying to break things. bottom line, there are some great scenario designers out there, and THAT is what counts. You will be beaten, that I can say. Tim 'Rune' Orosz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Will the scenarios and operations have a variety of scales? In other words, will they range from smaller Last Defence-type scenarios to larger "Alpha AAR" scenarios, and a similar variation in the operations? One of the disadvantages of TOAW 2 IMHO was the large size of many of the included scenarios - there were only a couple at the scale of "doable in an evening, but not trivial". Of course, the editor will keep things fresh. On a side note, for a balanced scenario, what are the right force ratios for an attack? I'd read that the attacker must have a 5:1 advantage (in real life) to have a good chance of success. Take that with a grain of salt, and of course nobody wants scenarios where the attacker is guaranteed a win. LD and Reisberg the attacker has an advantage of about 3:2 (of course the LD reinforcements muddy the picture), and they're fairly balanced. What are anyone's thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 In the histories I've read of the decisive battles of the East Front, I don't think the Soviets had numerical advantages of 5:1. At Kursk, for example, it was something on the order of 4000 Soviet:2100 German tanks (or something similar) Troop ratio was something like 1.9 million to 900K. I got these figures from a website that I found after a quick metacrawler.com search, so I make no assertions about their validity. I've always heard that the general chance of victory hits 50% around the time that the attacker has a 3:2 ratio in the mainstay weapons categories. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rommel Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Sure at kursk the germans were only 2 to 1, untill the soviets were able to bring in reinforcements, and this is only on armor. The infantry on the other hand, regularly had to go up against 30:1 odds, 50:1, and estimated at the battle of Belgorod, Gross Deutschland division faced infantry odds of over 100:1 . But all this is just an example that if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia (as everyone who has played RISK knows not to do the outcome of the war probably would have been vastly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Well, we must remember too that the battle of Kursk was initiated by the Germans. Frequently in history have attacks been made at 1:1, or even much less odds, occasionally with much success. The numerical odds tell almost nothing of the forces at hand. There is the Quality of the Leadership, Units, and Equipment which take an integral part. I would much rather have a company of Regulars armed with M1 Rifles attack an entire battalion of Conscripts with bolt action rifles any day. Just look at our games too. Although we cannot tell much so far, as the quality between the soldiers is very similar, we all know that green and conscript troops are good for little more than defence. I would hate to have to take any postition with conscripts. Indeed, in Chance Encounter the Germans have a small Conscript Platoon, and I neglected to check their status and threw them into a heated battle, boy did they run! However, on another occasion, one platoon of Regular and Green troops was crossing a field, and te Regular squads (2 of them) headed back to cover, leaving only the Green HQ and Squad to take the position. Which they did. Sometimes you can get these guys to become hero's, but, the chances are much better for your Veterans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted December 16, 1999 Author Share Posted December 16, 1999 Answering AACooper's query, the scenarios and operations vary greatly in size and length. There are those you can play in a quick moment before supper or bedtime. Then there are those for which you should bring lunch and supper (and a port-a-pottie). They range from company level to battalion plus. No matter what your taste, short and sweet, long and tough, I think you'll find your appetite for war thoroughly satisfied in this banquet of battles. And in odds, it really depends on a number of factors, hard to give a fixed figure. Meeting engagements, attack-defend, strong fixed positions (pillboxes-bunkers) terrain (open-mixed), and on and on. As a general rule 3:2 to 2:1 is about right from what I have seen so far. ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRaider Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 A semi-related question: In the beta demo, when picking the scenario, a Windows Open File screen pops up, and we select the actual file. Has this been changed into a more smooth interface? Will we be allowed to read the overview of each battle with one click, like the SP series? ------------------ Jeff -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted December 16, 1999 Author Share Posted December 16, 1999 Two clicks, depending where you go to find your scenarios,instead of one, Jeff. From there you can cancel... ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted December 17, 1999 Share Posted December 17, 1999 To answer part of my own question on force ratios, I remembered (and looked up to make sure) that U.S. Seventh Army captured the Vosges Mtns (rugged terrain, with prepared defense lines) in Oct-Dec '44 with a force ratio of 1.3 to 1 in infantry. Then, the German Nordwind counterattacked against the 7th Army in Jan '45. They had a force ratio advantage of 1.2 to 1, and were unsuccessful. In both cases the attacker had LOCAL advantages (CM's scale) that of course varied. The Vosges campaign is interesting because there was no air support, and neither side faced supply problems. The US persevered in the Vosges because of better operational strategy and better-trained green troops. In both cases the US and German forces were a mixture of experienced and untried troops. The US had the 3rd, 45th, and 36th divisions from the Sicily and Italy campaigns, and also the 63rd division that had to be thrown into the line before the divisional artillery and other support elements reached France. The Germans had the 21st and 11th Panzer Divisions, but also untried and virtually untrained divisions like the 716th VG. The German High Command also yanked units around before they could have an effect, so the command was chaotic. Unfortunately, the US had a harder time in other areas that fall, particularly the Hurtgen. The Germans beat up the numerically superior Russians because the level of training and leadership (in the beginning) was so drastically different. The US operational doctrine is similar to the German operational doctrine, and the leadership, on balance, was probably equal (remember the Germans had Hitler on their side). On the CM level, the differing doctrines on MG usage, Sherman vs Panther quality, Pzfaust vs Bazooka range & penetration, and small-unit leadership give the Germans a slight advantage. However, the use of non-German troops, and the low training level of late-war green German troops gives the US a big advantage. So, for what all was worth, I'd agree that a 3:2 or 2:1 ratio on the attack is probably a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts