Theatre of War AAR at SimHQ...

[Thomm]

By the way, I played a CMBB axis attack quick battle yesterday and found the way my poor, well-keyholed, reverse-sloped AT guns were taken out by mortars-from-hell extremely unfunny!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

Rollstoy,

Would that be the normal stuff or the "Legend of the Drunken Muzhik" video?

Regards,

John Kettler

[shredder]

After playing Close Combat III for the past couple of weeks, I can only say that without mortars this game would play out very differently. There are times when it is absolutely critical to have the ability to drop smoke to screen an advance or block the enemys LOS to an exposed unit, not to mention pinning down dug in infantry or suppressing an anti tank gun.

Mortars? Gotta have them - no ifs, ands, or buts. Not a game breaker, but without them there's no way ToW can be called realistic.

[RSColonel_131st]

I can't help but wonder how many more realism compromises we have to accept for this game.

Yeah, I know, I'm a whiner. So what.

Will this "addon" be released as a patch, or as a payware deal? Because I can't see myself paying extra for content that is IMHO crucial to a tactical WW2 game.

Sorry for the negativity, but it seems evertime I come here with high hopes for the game, another piece is taken away (and pieces added that do not fit, like the "recrewing of AT Guns"). This will certainly not be a clickfest-RTS, but with a few more pieces taken away, it will not remain a realistic WW2 either.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Megakill:

On mortars - sometime ago we have completely changed animation system in the game. We have all mortar models, etc, etc - but those will be introduced for the addon. Currently we need around 3 months of implementing then in the new system (basicly almost every mortar will come with it own soldier animation sequence). Furthermore as we operate not full crews for all weapons as well, the amount of extra animations for mortars is staggering. Like 4 soldiers firing, 3 soldiers firing, etc up to 1 single soldier doing all operations - aiming, bringing the shell, firing, etc, etc.

Sorry, I know we are not perfect. :-(

Why not just cut the crews down? We can live with a little abstraction you know.

Oh, and thanks for the HMG answer Moon. But surely the Poles had a Maxim gun at least?

[Megakill]

Sorry - everything has to be in line. All units are with perfect animations and couple with abstractions? No we won't everything perfect. Hence 5 years in development. What is not perfect - is not going to be included and will be finished for the addon. Same logics as with IL-2.

[Lars]

Ok, just suggested it as a stopgap.

[Moon]

RSColonel, that may well be. Creating a game is always a balance between realism and details and playability and, let's be honest, real-world considerations (like money for example), and until the game is released it is often hard to predict how it will all come together. You will be able to judge for yourself what you think of the result when the demo is out.

From what I see today (and it's still work in progress, keep that in mind) the game is extremely immersive for some reason I have not yet really been able to nail down (it can't be the graphics alone because I usually care little about the visuals), and while some elements are missing, what is there simply feels good. Much better than in other RTS games I played which might have some of the missing elements in fact and yet feel childish.

Martin

[RMC]

Originally posted by Moon:

From what I see today (and it's still work in progress, keep that in mind) the game is extremely immersive for some reason I have not yet really been able to nail down (it can't be the graphics alone because I usually care little about the visuals), and while some elements are missing, what is there simply feels good. Much better than in other RTS games I played which might have some of the missing elements in fact and yet feel childish.

It's the RT engine and the detailed representation. It's not RTS so it's not hordes of namless units mixing it up in melee. The soldiers have names and act realistically. They behave largely like you'd expect men in combat to. The combat interactions look and feel realistic and there is no artificial break in the action. It flows. You are engaged the whole time and can interact the whole time.

Contrasted with CM, when you're interacting with the battle in the orders phase there is no action. Then when the turn plays out and there is action, you cannot interact. So the RT feels more immediate in comparison.

[akd]

Originally posted by akd:

If capturing and manning enemy artillery is going to be a prevalent part of gameplay, can you order your own crews to disable their guns and withdraw if it appears they will be overrun? Will they make an attempt to disable their guns if they withdraw on their own initiative?

Still wondering about the above. :confused:

[Moon]

RMC, heck, I think you might be right to a large degree at least. There is more though, because there are other WW2 themed RTS games which have the same or similar features (and some of those look just as good or even better). I think it has to do with the "nearly" realistic engagement ranges and generally bigger maps which do not feel cramped and the slower pace of TOW (than all of the other RTS Games have) which creates a great illusion of realism even despite some missing features. It's really odd but TOW is the only RT (let's drop the S, I like that) game where this happened to me.

(RTT - real time tactics?)

akd - yes, you can abandon guns (and vehicles and other equipment), and even reman them later as often as you want. You cannot order them destroyed though, nor will the AI do this on its own.

Martin

[RMC]

Originally posted by Moon:

RMC, heck, I think you might be right to a large degree at least. There is more though, because there are other WW2 themed RTS games which have the same or similar features (and some of those look just as good or even better). I think it has to do with the "nearly" realistic engagement ranges and generally bigger maps which do not feel cramped and the slower pace of TOW (than all of the other RTS Games have) which creates a great illusion of realism even despite some missing features. It's really odd but TOW is the only RT (let's drop the S, I like that) game where this happened to me.

That's why I said it was a combination of things. The RTness of ToW makes it immediate and the realism of the combat interactions, including the combat ranges, makes it immersive and satisfying to you.

I make a distinction between games the run in real time and those game that fit the "Real-Time Strategy" genre. RTS has a basic pattern involving some sort of resource gathering, unit building, tech research and streamlined combat model. Much of the time the strategy emphasis is in the building and research areas and not in the combat.

Close Combat ran in real time, but otherwise had no relation to the RTS crowd. A couple tactical games like Fallout:Tactics and X-Com Apocalypse allowed a player to play in RT or TB mode and also didn't fit the RTS mold. Flight sims run in RT, but no one seems to have a big hang up about that.

(RTT - real time tactics?)

I think there was a relatively recent game that used that as a slogan.

RTTW Real Time Tactical Wargame? I dunno. What do you call CMx2 which will do RT or TB out of the box? TWURTOTBEDOPP - Tactical Wargame Using Real Time Or Turn Based Engine Depending On Player Preference?

[Moon]

Hehe, sounds as if somebody burped though

Martin

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

From what I see today (and it's still work in progress, keep that in mind) the game is extremely immersive for some reason I have not yet really been able to nail down (it can't be the graphics alone because I usually care little about the visuals), and while some elements are missing, what is there simply feels good.

It's the RT engine and the detailed representation. It's not RTS so it's not hordes of namless units mixing it up in melee. The soldiers have names and act realistically. They behave largely like you'd expect men in combat to. The combat interactions look and feel realistic and there is no artificial break in the action. It flows. You are engaged the whole time and can interact the whole time.

</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by shredder:

Mortars? Gotta have them - no ifs, ands, or buts. Not a game breaker, but without them there's no way ToW can be called realistic.

like others suggested and one official reported,

its sufficient if they're included in a generic off-board light arty way.

not perfect but adequate.

IMO.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Moon:

akd - yes, you can abandon guns (and vehicles and other equipment), and even reman them later as often as you want. You cannot order them destroyed though, nor will the AI do this on its own.

Martin

so you cannot destroy them on purpose.

hmm.

it would seem to me that to have a big gun quite often is more of a liability then an asset.

it might add to self-reinforcing lopsiding effect.

once one side has the upper hand and starts taking the important tiberium sources... uh, I mean gun pieces they can turn these around and the superiority is even more increased.

but wait - you can always use your own mortar teams to destroy them... uh, wait, there's a problem with that

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Moon:

RSColonel, that may well be. Creating a game is always a balance between realism and details and playability and, let's be honest, real-world considerations (like money for example), and until the game is released it is often hard to predict how it will all come together.

What hurts me a bit, Moon, is that you guys created a large hype (Puzzle Pieces anyone?) around this one and made it "unbelivable freaking huge news".

Keep in mind you created this hype on a website that caters to wargamers first and foremost, who want realistic WW2 tactics down to every detail.

And now, bit by bit, disapointment sets in as more and of the pieces that make a game "realistic" are removed (at least in my opinion, and I know others think similar).

If you guys were just a generic software company this would not be any kind of surprise, but to see Battlefront try and "rationalize" why all this stuff (no enterable buildings, no mortars, 500m engagement ranges for tanks) isn't actually important...makes me wonder, can't help it.

Also, I might repeat my question: Will this "addon" be free or payware? People keep promising stuff that "might be in the addon" but as of yet we don't even know if one will happen at all.

[TuuSaR]

Its all about money, if their game sells very well, they can add and improve hugely just by patching.

Because sales are unknown, all future is unknown.

You can ask them to improve game but forecasting future is overboard.

[RMC]

Yeah, 10,000 units sold means they add german 5cm mortars. 20,000 units means they add US 60mm. 30,000 units gets us the brit 2" etc etc.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by RMC:

Yeah, 10,000 units sold means they add german 5cm mortars. 20,000 units means they add US 60mm. 30,000 units gets us the brit 2" etc etc.

so in the end when every computer in the world has two copies of ToW we will get to see the japanese "knee" mortar or the british Northover pojector?

How much for the Ampulomet?

Sturmpistole?

[Moon]

RS_Colonel, the list you have made of omissions is pretty much complete (and the jury is in fact still out on the engagement ranges at least). You make it sound like dozens and dozens of must-have features have been removed from the game, but we're talking about those 3 really and nothing else.

And then look what we have at the other side of the equation - individual soldiers, recrewable equipment, realistic damage models, individual penetration holes, animated air power, a campaign system with a full RPG element and and and... in summing up: a WW2 real-time game much more realistic than anything else comparable out there. I think that warrants the "freaking big news" indeed.

Disappointement: One of the mistakes you make IMO is that you focus on individual features missing but lose the big picture out of sight. TOW is not the kind of sandbox game like CM was (I am borrowing this phrase from Matt who used it recently in an internal discussion, similar to what is going on here actually). It focuses on a limited scope of things and does what it provides extremely well.

You're actually misquoting us if you say that we try to rationalize why something isn't important and that makes it sound ridiculous. Nobody is saying that mortars aren't important. Or that entering buildings wasn't a part of WW2 tactics.

I said the exact opposite several times now, and I will keep repeating it as long as people will keep misquoting us. But their omission doesn't make the missions that the game provides any less enjoyable, nor, inherently, any less realistic *for that given mission*. Or did *every single battle* feature mortars? Or people fighting from buildings?

As for those people that want a game realistic "down to every detail" - that's ok, I want that, too, but don't forget in the meantime to be happy about the 90% of things that you get while you whine about the 10% that you don't. It took us three games to refine the CM engine and move from, say, 80% to 90%. It now takes us several more years to make a new engine which will allow us to add a few more %. You're expecting TOW to deliver 110% right out of the box.

As for the add-on, nobody has answered because nobody knows at this point. There will be free patches for the game without a doubt, and I bet some of those will be adding free content. But there will also be paid add-ons and expansions, and don't be surprised if we're going to stick the bigger improvements in there. At the same time, you should also not be surprised if there won't be any add-ons and improvements at all when TOW doesn't sell well because people complain that you cannot hide behind some interior furniture in the game...

Martin

[Elementalism]

I didnt notice anything about command delay? When you issue orders to a tank or unit, how long does it take for them to start what you want them to do? Is it immediate or are you abstracting any kind of command delay like you got in CM?

The AAR looks interesting and sounded like fun. I am not expecting CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK in a real time setting. I just hope the ballistics stay true to the above games.

btw hope we can have more than 150 men\units. I would like to have a company+ sized attack with supporting armor

Oh, one more thing, are the air attachments controllable or completely random? Meaning can you direct them to hit a spot or do they show up and looking for targets of opportunity?

[Moon]

Elementalism - there is a tiny delay but the game does not really simulate C&C like CM did.

The 150 units limit actually turns out to be misinformation planted on this forum by evil spies There is no hard limit except your hardware.

You can control air power, yes. It works like in Close Combat - once available you can choose a target location for it, and usually within a minute or two you're going to get a nice little strafe or bomb run on or near that location. What is really neat is that you hear and see the planes approaching from far out. In one of the missions my bombers were jumped by a Russian fighter and actually shot down... I was so in awe that I forgot to watch the ground fight for a couple minutes.

Martin

[Elementalism]

Wow quick reply, good to hear. I'll be watching for this. Been a Combat Mission fan since I read about CMBO in Aug of 2000. Picked up CMBO + CMBB and have played them alot, though not as much lately.

And I have been following this game through its renaming. I believe this was called something else wasnt it? Anyways looks like a lot of fun for a RTS, as most RTS's are brainless zergfests that have little to do with tactics except to outzerg your opponent.

[Lars]

So there's no interior furniture either? How about a nice yard set?

Btw, you never answered my question about friendly fire. Is it in?