What needs to be changed about Operations?

[Jeff Heidman]

Here is my list of things that need to be changed about how Operations work:

1. More sophisticated front line determination.

2. More sophisitcated front line determination.

3. More sophisitcated front line determination.

4. Dynamic setup zones.

5. Ability to purchase reinforcements.

6. A lot more flexiblity to define start parameters like weather, etc. for every date in an op.

The scnario/operation creation tools could really use a large amount of work. The current tools are decent, but extremely limiting.

This is an area where, IMOSHO, BTS could really get a lot of mileage out of hiring someone to work on it exclusively. It would add a lot of value, but is admittedly not the core of the product, hence probably not something for Charles to spend too much of his time upon.

Jeff Heidman

[Kingfish]

I'd like to add one more to that list, and that's to allow the Op to play thru to the end regardless of whether the ojectives have been accomplished. It would be nice to have the opportunity to counterattack and regain lost ground.

------------------

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Doug Beman]

Jeff,

could you please define "More sophisticated front line determination" and "dynamic setup zones." I've not seen other discussions about this, so I may have missed it.

I don't think the ability to "purchase" reinforcements should be in. In historical operations, what reinforcements might be available was decided way up the ladder (as built in by the op builder, playing divisional or higher command).

Kingfish, the point to an operation is to simulate historical-type stuff. In real war, if your mission is to hold the battlefield for X days (or take it in X days) and you don't, you don't get to keep trying. You lose (maybe die, maybe are replaced as CO)

How much longer should you be allowed to play? Indefinitely? That defies the scale of CM.

If you don't like the way an op ends, you can simply use the status at the end and build a new op that picks up where the last left off.

DjB

[Doug Beman]

DOUBLE POST

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

OK, why does this topic show three replies, but there appears to only actually be a single reply?

Jeff

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Hit refresh

[Jeff Heidman]

Doug,

More sophisticated front lines determination:

Right now, after a battle, the setup areas (front lines) for the next battle are a perfectly straight line running the width or length of the map. There are no curves, pockets, bulges, or anything, just one long straight line.

I would like to see a more sophisticated algorithm for determine front lines. Something that will allow for pockets, and such. Not easy to implement, but important.

2. Dynamic setup zones:

The ability to change where reinforcements enter from from scenario to scenario within an operation, and just generally be able to do more with this than is currently allowed.

As far as the unit purchases are concerned, yes it isn't historically accurate, but the entire thing is not historically accurate. historically, there was never a single person who acted as the tactical leader for every leadership position within a force, from battalion CO down to squad leader. The enjoyment of a wargame is to see what you can accomplish different from what your historical counterparts managed. There are numerous examples of limits placed upon your historical counterpart not reflected in the game. So what? I care about historical accuracy as it relates to the technical details, not as it relates to the scenario set-up, which is inherently inaccurate anyway.

Allowing some type of optional (decided by designers) ability to select forces would add to the fun of the game. The best way to do this would be to allow the scenario designer to designate force pools from which you can then select your units. Alternatively, the designer could just assign units.

During Peipers attack in the Bulge, he decided to leave his King Tigers in the rear, i.e. he did not "purchase" them. Maybe it would be interesting to see what you could do if you had decided differently.

Anyone who has ever played Red Barricades or another ASL Campaign Game knows that force selection is critical to the enjoyment and strategy of the game. Deciding whether or not to invest in that Pioneer company is one of the more enjoyable parts of the game.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Pattison]

Besides the front line issue, I'd like to see the ability to designate more than one night battle per day in scenario design.

[Guest KwazyDog]

"Right now, after a battle, the setup areas (front lines) for the next battle are a perfectly straight line running the width or length of the map. There are no curves, pockets, bulges, or anything, just one long straight line.

I would like to see a more sophisticated algorithm for determine front lines. Something that will allow for pockets, and such. Not easy to implement, but important."

Hehe, me thinks someone hasnt played an operation with the new beta

Give it a go, I think you will be pleasently suprised. Charles fixed a bug he found to do with the front line resolution and its a nice addition to the way they operate.

OPerations are something I am looking forward to seeing enhanced in CM2, but in my opinion they are now playing very nicely in CM1...

Dan

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 12-22-2000).]

[RudeLover]

I played the first battle of an op with the beta (not sure which build) and saw extremely jagged lines, not to mention two setup zones that worked right (playing as Amis, had a white zone and a red zone, with reinforcements in the red and survivors of the first battle in the white IIRC).

I've been grading final exams and buying presents so I haven't had more time to explore this but KwazyDog's post suggests that Charles has worked some more magic!

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Kingfish, the point to an operation is to simulate historical-type stuff. In real war, if your mission is to hold the battlefield for X days (or take it in X days) and you don't, you don't get to keep trying. You lose (maybe die, maybe are replaced as CO)

How much longer should you be allowed to play? Indefinitely? That defies the scale of CM.

If you don't like the way an op ends, you can simply use the status at the end and build a new op that picks up where the last left off.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug,

You misunderstood me. What I meant was if the Op is 6 battles long I want play all 6 battles. I'm not asking for a 7th. The problem right now is that Ops end immediately the moment the objective is achieved, and not giving the other played a chance to counterattack.

------------------

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Peterk]

A small comment amount the request to define paramaters like weather for each day in an op.

Yeah, it might be nice to be able to get historically accurate weather on every day, but I find that the operations replayability is greatly enhanced by letting the computer make weather decisions as it is now.

I've played A Day In The Cavalry twice so far and the two games were totally different mostly because the computer generated much more horrendous weather the 2nd time around than the first.

p.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

This is an area where, IMOSHO, BTS could really get a lot of mileage out of hiring someone to work on it exclusively.

Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi there,

I'm not disagreeing with your other points, actually I agree with them for the most part, but I did cringe at the point when you asked BTS to hire someone to work on operation and operation design "exclusively".

Last time I checked, BTS wasn't a publicly owned company. Yes, they've allowed for more input from their customers than any other company I've ever seen, but none of us really have any right to start suggesting to BTS that they should hire more people. While they probably do appreciate some of our suggestions as to the game ITSELF, they probably don't really need us to tell them who to hire, and how to run their business. They've got it covered, let them run their business in the way THEY want to. Same goes for people who tell BTS to hire all of the third-party mod artists for CM2. Yes, while it would be nice to have the very best art from all of the wonderful artists, it just wouldn't make sense in an economic sense, espescially when you consider that they already have a perfectly capable artist already. Keep the suggestions coming, but keep them to the game itself. I know I wouldn't want someone to tell me who to hire, or where to spend my money.

Thanks,

Jim

[CrazyCurt]

I play ops almost exclusively. Seems to me the front lines after battles have contained pockets, most notably a few times pillboxes I've bypassed. I've only seen one change of lines be totally straight and that was an earlier beta . The only thing I'd like is the opportunity to have more than six slots for reinforcements for those really long ops. Otherwise CMBO ops are great, having loads of fun with 'em. Just my opinion.

[Jeff Heidman]

I think people are missing my point.

I really, really like playing Ops. Right now, as they stand, they are plenty of fun.

I am not saying they are worthless or unplayable, I am saying they could defintely be a lot better. Such is the nature of putting out an outstanding product. It opens whole realms of new possibilities.

As far as my suggestion that they hire someone, I am not really sure I understand the objection. It is a suggestion. I can (and will) make any suggestion that I fancy. BTS can choose to ignore it or not. The suggestion itself can certainly do no harm.

Jeff Heidman

[Kingfish]

Admit it Jeff, your suggestion is nothing more than a shameless attempt to get yourself hired as the Op designer for BTS. I for one find your actions despicable!

E-mail me when you need a Beta tester

------------------

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Jeff Heidman]

LOL.

BTS couldn't afford me

Besides, why would anyone want to develop on a Mac? Blech!

Jeff Heidman

[Bullethead]

Rudelover said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I played the first battle of an op with the beta (not sure which build) and saw extremely jagged lines<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain, for someone who refuses to get beta patches, what you mean by "extremely jagged" front lines.

To help you in explaining, here's what I see in 1.05. Say I have a defensive line of pillboxes, wire, and mines stretching right across the map. Say in battle #1 the attackers breach the line on a flank and roll up part of that end of it, but leave about 75% of the line unscathed. When the next battle starts, all those gains are lost and the front line has all the fortified zone still under control of the defenders.

Also, I would like to see ops be able to handle battles of encirclement. That is, the front line should form a loop around the defenders in the center of the map. Is this now possible with the betas? If not, it really should be.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Bullethead, just so you know installing the beta patch will in no way overwrite anything from you standard CM install. It has its own executable, which allows you to keep the beta totally seperate.

Its a bit hard to explain how it operates now, but basically units that have moved forward from you main troops at the end of a battle will often start in their own setup area, possably even cut off from your main group.

For instance in an op I am playing I rushed some engineers forward in half tracks and 2 shermans to capture a town before the Germans had time to secure it. After a bloody fight I was still holding the town at the end of the first battle. At the beginning of th enext battle I was happy to see that those engineers and support units were in their own setup zones *within* the town. The lives I gave to hold it were well worth it

If you feel up to it give the beta a try and you will see what I mean...otherwise I guess youll have to wait for the final patch

Id be interested in hearing what you guys think of this whom have given it a go? It wont be eveyones solution to the problem but I really like the way it works myself

Dan

[John Kelly]

I'm glad this thread was started. I am working on a new operation and I thought it would be nice to allow the Germans some "daisy-chain" anti-tank devices for later on during the operation. Since these are considered hastily laid defenses, I thought it would simulate an ordered withdrawal. Unfortunately, the setup menu would not allow any fortification devices to be placed other than "on map" at the beginning of the operation. Why not permit something like daisy-chain anti-tank placement in later battles? John

[Doug Beman]

Kingfish, I did indeed misunderstand you. I get your point now. It does "skew" things a little when either side KNOWS that the battle will end as long as they accomplish the task. They doesn't have to worry about keeping a reserve, or about what force disposition looks like at the end of the op.

However, if you allow the op to run so the defender gets to counterattack, then shouldn't the attacker get to react to that? It's a slippery slope; pretty soon there'll be people saying "my troops should become veterans during the counter-counterattack."

I think BTS has hit the right chord in ops being concerned with the original attack, or defense, or whatever, as a distinct group of battles with a concrete objective, and ending when either the objective is achieved or the time limit is reached.

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Also, to back to Jeff's request for more varied front lines:

I played Drive to Mortain a couple times (V 1.05) and saw, in my opinion, good "inter-battle front line setting." I could reposition my troops depending on their experience, unit type, and whether the area in question was directly controled or in contention.

DjB

[Stephen Smith]

I haven't played any of the operations yet, but it appears that when one battle is over, the computer 'draws' a front line, and you get your units to set up along that front line in set up zones. Thus, surrounded units get returned to your lines, units that are poorly positioned (say down in a draw, when the main battle is taking place elsewhere) are allowed the opportunity to reposition, etc.

What if the computer didn't move everybody, but simply 'drew' a front line for resupply purposes? An artificial 'front line' is defined-and everyone on the friendly side of it gets resupplies, perhaps occasional replacements, etc. Anyone on the other side of it (overextended units, surrounded units, etc) do not. All units stay in place, with the strengths and weaknesses of the ending positions from the previous battle still in place?

steve

[Doug Beman]

Steve, the first part of what you've described is in the game already. Between battles units get resupplied, etc.

However, your suggestion of "everybody stands stock-still between battles" doesn't work because it's assumed that there is a little time between battles for resupplies/reloading/casualty evacuation/whatever, during which units would move to better spots. They wouldn't just sit on the roadside twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the next battle to start.

DjB