Command Ops - Scope
Arjuna
As I mentioned in another thread, we're kicking off our new Modern
Warfare Data Design Team (DDT) to help design a modern warfare game
based on our Airborne Assault game engine. We will be referring to this
series as Command Ops.
The game will essentially focus on operational land warfare. At this
stage we intend increasing our ground scale to 250m per moveGrid and we
may lower the base unit from a company to platoon ( though that is
still moot ). The first order of business will be to determine the
scope of the game - ie what time period, battle ( actual or
hypothetical ), location, sides, force structures etc.
We'd love to hear for you if you have some condtructive ideas.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Arjuna wrote:
> The first order of business will be to determine the
> scope of the game - ie what time period, battle ( actual or
> hypothetical ), location, sides, force structures etc.
Ok, here goes :
- every IRL war after 1990 has been a pretty one-sided affair so forget
about them. Don't fall in the trap of a hypothetical US vs <name muslim
country> war unless you can get a juicy contract from the Pentagon to
do so. They're asynchronous fights.
- the Yugoslav wars have not been pretty and nobody really wants to be
reminded of them. "Shell civilians" and "burn down village" are not
command options I'd like to see on the button bar.
- for the Falklands war you need a strong air/naval component in your
game, and the ground scale lowered a lot.
- the Arab/Israeli wars : a bit less one-sided, but still ... I'm
waiting for ProSimCo's game to arrive in the mail so I can have a look
at what they've made of it.
- The Iran/Iraq wars : sure, you can then use the same engine for a WWI
game ...
- Nato vs Warsaw - do-able if the air-component is seriously upgraded,
a good fictional background story is a must here as well.
- Vietnam : do-able - add an air + airmobile component + lower the
scale
> We'd love to hear for you if you have some condtructive ideas.
uh - oh, in that case ignore all of the above :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Oleg Mastruko
- Germany 75
- Germany 86
- Korea 51 (although Korea was basically WW2 on steroids so I
don't know how "modern" it is for purposes of this discussion)
Anything else is too one sided, too third-worldy, or not very
interesting for wargaming public (like Iran Iraq stuff).
Vietnam might do too, but not as first game in the series. Why?
Because I think this engine might have problems with jungle combat.
Better see how jungle combat works thru planned Pacific war WW2 game,
and see how modern combat works thru Germany 75 and then if it works
OK move on to Vietnam.
O.
Oleg Mastruko
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>- every IRL war after 1990 has been a pretty one-sided affair so forget
>about them. Don't fall in the trap of a hypothetical US vs <name muslim
>country> war unless you can get a juicy contract from the Pentagon to
>do so. They're asynchronous fights.
LOL Eddy 100% true on all accounts.
>- the Yugoslav wars have not been pretty and nobody really wants to be
>reminded of them. "Shell civilians" and "burn down village" are not
>command options I'd like to see on the button bar.
You'd be surprised by how many people would want to be reminded
of that :o) BTW shelling the civillians and burning villages was
oftenly over-emphasized by brain dead western TV reporters who
repeated same things over and over again. Closing actions of Croat
army in 95 were more or less your normal vanilla military operations
in most part.
But I agree as wargaming subject it's not really interesting.
Another case of WW2 on steroids, not really a "modern" conflict (I
might get some flak from my Croat copatriots for this though)
>- for the Falklands war you need a strong air/naval component in your
>game, and the ground scale lowered a lot.
Ground side is one sided and not interesting. Brit Paras vs
Argie conscripts. Air and naval components were interesting parts of
Falkland conflict, once we got to land combat issue was already
resolved, so I don't think this would work well in HTTR engine.
>- the Arab/Israeli wars : a bit less one-sided, but still ... I'm
>waiting for ProSimCo's game to arrive in the mail so I can have a look
>at what they've made of it.
Could work.
>- The Iran/Iraq wars : sure, you can then use the same engine for a WWI
>game ...
I would be interested in this, but 99,5% of wargaming public
sadly would not be.
>- Nato vs Warsaw - do-able if the air-component is seriously upgraded,
>a good fictional background story is a must here as well.
My vote goes to NATO-WP.
>- Vietnam : do-able - add an air + airmobile component + lower the
>scale
As I said I suspect how the jungle combat will be handled in
this engine and would rather see some other post-HTTR game explore
jungle combat first (like planned Pac War HTTR)
O.
Eddy Sterckx
news:2jd2l11clgo6tjuok...@4ax.com:
> You'd be surprised by how many people would want to be reminded
> of that :o)
Depends on where you live - it's a personal thing I guess when you're a
Croat. I'm still ashamed "our" politicians didn't have the guts to tell
the Serbs to back-off and it was the US (again) who had to step in.
> BTW shelling the civillians and burning villages was
> oftenly over-emphasized by brain dead western TV reporters who
> repeated same things over and over again. Closing actions of Croat
> army in 95 were more or less your normal vanilla military operations
> in most part.
Oleg, I travelled through Croatia a couple years after the war - I've
seen a couple of villages near the Bosnian border (up from Senj) that
were completely deserted and where you could visibly see that the
civilian houses had been the target of destruction. There's one (1) such
village in France (Oradour) that the Germans destroyed and they turned
it into a monument. The sad truth is that it happened regularly all over
the former Yugoslav republic, by all parties.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
--
"Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam esse."
(Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')
Basrah...@mailinator.com
Taiwan 2007
NATO-WP 85-87
Korea-Current with Chinese intervention on NK side.
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>> army in 95 were more or less your normal vanilla military operations
>> in most part.
>
>Oleg, I travelled through Croatia a couple years after the war - I've
>seen a couple of villages near the Bosnian border (up from Senj) that
>were completely deserted and where you could visibly see that the
>civilian houses had been the target of destruction.
LOL What were you doing in that part of the country? I sure hope
you spent more time in nicer places.
Yes sure there was very ugly ethnic component in ex-Yugo
fighting, no one would try to deny it. Burning of villages usually
happened after military actions ended. What I wanted to say was more
along the lines that it need not be modelled in wargame/simulation, in
as much as actions of various Nazi Jew/Slav-killing squads are usually
not modelled in East Front game, and Oradour is not modelled in any
West Front game.
Still I am glad this discussion is moot.
O.
Oleg Mastruko
Good ideas all (IMHO).
O.
Eddy Sterckx
> On 15 Oct 2005 17:59:29 GMT, Eddy Sterckx <eddys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> army in 95 were more or less your normal vanilla military operations
>>> in most part.
>>
>>Oleg, I travelled through Croatia a couple years after the war - I've
>>seen a couple of villages near the Bosnian border (up from Senj) that
>>were completely deserted and where you could visibly see that the
>>civilian houses had been the target of destruction.
>
> LOL What were you doing in that part of the country? I sure hope
> you spent more time in nicer places.
Visiting those multiple lakes on different elevation levels called
<can't remember> - taking a shortcut from the coast brought us close to
the Bosnian border .. and through those ghost-villages.
We visited the usual tourist haunts as well, came down from Slovenia
through Istria and down the coastline - much nicer placer indeed.
Giftzwerg
says...
> Vietnam might do too, but not as first game in the series. Why?
> Because I think this engine might have problems with jungle combat.
Why do you think that?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative
reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, Bush has no chance of
winning a third term."
- James Lileks
Oleg Mastruko
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <jbd2l1t3vs06bkasf...@4ax.com>, ol...@bug.hr
>says...
>
>> Vietnam might do too, but not as first game in the series. Why?
>> Because I think this engine might have problems with jungle combat.
>
>Why do you think that?
Perhaps it's not the engine that would have problems but rather
the gameplay. Forrests are too dense and combat is short ranged. Unit
cohesion is affected by terrain. Need for very small units (platoons)
in independent action.
When night falls, visibility will be so low in jungle all action
will effectivelly stop for like 10 hours (or whatever the night lasts
in given period of the year). Individual small units (platoons) may
spot similar sized enemy units in what will soon be very chaotic
action (or no action at all if both sides decide to stay put). You may
need to have like 2-3 various "levels" of jungle (impassable to tanks,
passable but very slow etc.). Even during the day visibility (as
simulated in the game) may be too low to provide for operationally
cohesive and enjoyable gaming experience.
Of course one can say all this merely does a good simulation of
the combat experience... which is true, but all this does not sound
too "modern" for my taste.
Then again there is need to model helicopter invasions, recon
and combat to a solid degree. Contrary to many I am OK with current
simplified air model where you're given alotted number of ground
strikes and that's it. Even though it's very simplified I think it
could work pretty good even in WW3 in Europe, so developers will not
necesarily need to spend large amount of time on aerial modelling for
Germany 75 kind of game (at least IMO). You have your strikes, and
use them as best you can. Helos in Germany game could be modelled like
flying ATGM platforms (OK I am simplifying things here somewhat.)
But in Vietnam you need to have good eyes from above otherwise
you won't see much. So you need helos modelled to a very solid and
realistic degree (which adds to development time) cause you'll need
them for many tasks not just to kill tanks.
First version of Germany game might be done without airmobile
invasions being simulated at all. In Vietnam you will need to have
airmobile stuff in version 1.0 I guess.
I am not saying it will not work I just think it would be better
to see how jungle stuff works on planned Pac War game (which is
already in the works) and start modern series with something else.
Germany 75 is certain to see some very action-packed wargaming.
Vietnam might be too much of tapping in the dark as far as gameplay is
concerned.
O.
Basrah...@mailinator.com
When developing the battles/engagements (and the force structures that
support them) give us the chance for the full battle. Don't start us
already in contact with the enemy. Leave room for us to develop the
situation. One of the things I love about HTTR is the developing German
response, your not facing a dug in map side to map side line. Modern
battles (in the context of main force engagements) were always
predicted to have a large number of meeting engagements with
Recon/Counterrecon battles etc. This would be my hope for the setting
and force selection of the new game. I'll wait very patiently for this
one to say the least, looking forward to commenting on boards etc.
Meanwhile pop out COTA :)
John
Giftzwerg
says...
> First version of Germany game might be done without airmobile
> invasions being simulated at all. In Vietnam you will need to have
> airmobile stuff in version 1.0 I guess.
Absolutely.
But how much "modeling" of helicopter operations do you need from the
perspective of the player in command? I mean, I *assume* that HTTR
models trucks and halftracks - but as the commander in charge of the
division, it only means that an armored infantry battalion moves faster
and hits harder than its parachute infantry cousin. I don't have to
*do* anything with the trucks and APCs, just make sure the battalion has
some left and is in reasonable shape.
That's how I imagine Panther would implement airmobility. I don't want
to screw around with individual helicopters or helicopter units - I just
need enough good-order Hueys around to transport my company to the
ambush site. And the helicopters would probably not even be under my
command, given that in a smaller-scale game I would probably "be" the
colonel commanding the battalion task force instead of the general in
charge of the division.
So the way I see it happening is to look on the "Airmobile
Availability" bar, note that I have roughly enough helicopters available
this afternoon to move two platoons, and plan accordingly.
Overall, I really don't see why this would be a problem, implementation-
wise. A helicopter is really just a flying truck that's not attached to
the unit it's carrying.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> A helicopter is really just a flying truck that's not attached to
> the unit it's carrying.
Good point, but it can't land anywhere it wants, wants to avoid certain
areas with lots of AA activity and so on. You can't completely detach
the helicopter from the ground so to speak. No big conceptual hurdle I
agree, but still plenty of coding required I think.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
No disagreement here. But I'm not sure that it will require any sort of
"order of magnitude" shift above and beyond what Panther has already
shown gamers two year ago.
Keep in mind, here, that I've purposefully kept myself as ignorant as
possible about the design differences between HTTR and COTA, for the
simple reason that I want to experience the new game "fresh." I'm
fairly confident that Panther will show me something WRT the Aegean -
and I'm unwilling to argue that anything I've seen thus far precludes
their doing a bang-up job with the jungles of Vietnam.
Maybe I'm alone in this theory, but I think a Vietnam game would show
the strengths of the HTTR "philosophy" like no other scenario. Drop the
scale a single level and go-to-town.
Arjuna
on my mind for the last 12 months or so. I wish I had time to delve in
but there are some very demanding customers out there who would take
exception to me devoting anything less than 110% to getting COTA out.
But please carry on as I'm very interested.
The two competing factors here are how do we keep it simple stupid
(KISS) yet make it realistic in its execution.Do we represent the
helo's as units? If so, how do we merge them when they are transporting
other ground units? Also what do you see on the screen - the ground
unit with some modified icon and data or the helo unit with an
indicator for the unit being carried? How do we model gunships/attack
helos? How do we model Air Cav where Gun ships and transports work hand
in glove?
Food for thought. :))
Giftzwerg
da...@panthergames.com says...
> The two competing factors here are how do we keep it simple stupid
> (KISS) yet make it realistic in its execution.Do we represent the
> helo's as units? If so, how do we merge them when they are transporting
> other ground units? Also what do you see on the screen - the ground
> unit with some modified icon and data or the helo unit with an
> indicator for the unit being carried? How do we model gunships/attack
> helos? How do we model Air Cav where Gun ships and transports work hand
> in glove?
First off, I would make a primary distinction between commands where the
helicopters are *inherent* units, and commands where helicopters are
*attached* units. In the former case, the choppers should be
represented as integral to the company being modeled, and should be
usable in any way the commander desires. In the latter case, the
choppers should be modeled as abstract transport strata useful only to
get the unit itself into trouble.
Secondly, attack helicopter units should always be represented on the
map. "Slicks" might never be. The distinction is easy; a game would
always represent tank units on the battle field, but the representation
of trucks would depend on how the game design sugared out. To my mind
that means a section of AH-64s should be essentially the same as a
section of M1A2s, except that one flies and the other does not. But the
representation of *trucks* (or slicks...) is a tougher call, and goes to
the heart of how the game design is made.
Speaking for myself, I would use counters to depict the attack
helicopters, and an abstract "airmobility factor" to represent the
transport helicopters.
Basrah...@mailinator.com
avaition, no matter what the setting, could be done several ways. A
unit as you described or the unit represents the static portion of the
unit (fuel, ammo, mechanics, HQ etc) and a combat effect that can range
from that location out to an area or enemy unit on a mission basis. The
vast differences in movement rates between avaition and regular ground
units could possibly create some strange visuals, especially if a
majority of you regular ground units are Leg units. It takes longer to
plan and prep for the mission then it does to actually carry it out
normally.
I'm confident that Panther can pull it off, I don't give all companies
this same vote of confidence that I'm giving here.
John
Arjuna
In COTA we handle the logistic transport in a semi abstract fashion.
Each Base or Depot unit has a certain amount of transport that it can
assign to Supply Runs. In effect it hives off a certain number of
trucks, personnel and supplies to form a Transport Column. This does
not appear on the map as such, but it does trace a route and consumes
supplies as it moves. It's arrival at the unit requesting supplies is
handled by an event that checks for things like can the transport
column get through now, what losses if any it suffers and transfers the
supplies and schedules a return event. Upon return at the Base it is
absorbed back into the Base. So if you like it's like a temporary unit.
We could handle tansport helos in the same way, despatching them
abstractly till they marry up with the ground unit they will transport,
then meging them into that unit as it were, changing its move type to
airmobile. Once they decide to part company, we could then return them
back to the airbase they originated from.
Basrah...@mailinator.com
if you chose a later time period modern setting. Nothing like finding a
helo unit on the ground with deep fire assets sitting in your arsenal.
Even catching them at a FARP would be nice if you had MLRS. Thanks for
the info on this possible game.
John
Frank E
>Interesting discussion on helicopters. This is something that has been
>on my mind for the last 12 months or so. I wish I had time to delve in
>but there are some very demanding customers out there who would take
>exception to me devoting anything less than 110% to getting COTA out.
Uh huh! <g>
>The two competing factors here are how do we keep it simple stupid
>(KISS) yet make it realistic in its execution.Do we represent the
>helo's as units? If so, how do we merge them when they are transporting
>other ground units? Also what do you see on the screen - the ground
>unit with some modified icon and data or the helo unit with an
>indicator for the unit being carried?
I think you want to model transport helos as units, otherwise you're
limiting yourself too much in scenario types if they aren't a limited
asset. From a KISS perspective, here's a relatively simple (to code)
way of doing it.
- All units have one of 2 load values, lets call them infrantry and
armor/art.
- Each transport unit (not sure about the scale) has a max capacity
for each load type and you can't transport more than one land asset
per transport unit. It would make it easier if you could break down
your land assets to make them fit...
- For simplicity, lets make their movement instantaneous. They can
basically be placed on any square of the map for loading/unloading. -
- Each side has a global variable call AA strength that would
determine the likelyhood of the unit taking damage during that instant
move. You could modify this based on something like % of AA units
damaged during a scenario.
- Once they're in position to load/unload, they're treated as any
other unit for the sake of incoming fire.
>How do we model gunships/attack helos?
Basically the same way. They can be placed anywhere on the map, are
subject to the global AA fire during that move and are subject to
standard fire rules once they're in position. When in position,
they're treated as standard direct fire units.
> How do we model Air Cav where Gun ships and transports work hand
>in glove?
If you go with global AA being affected by casualties, you have built
in suppression by gunships. Player sends in the gunships first, they
engage the AA and ground assets, player sends in the transports.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> I think you want to model transport helos as units, otherwise you're
> limiting yourself too much in scenario types if they aren't a limited
> asset. From a KISS perspective, here's a relatively simple (to code)
> way of doing it.
> - All units have one of 2 load values, lets call them infrantry and
> armor/art.
> - Each transport unit (not sure about the scale) has a max capacity
> for each load type and you can't transport more than one land asset
> per transport unit. It would make it easier if you could break down
> your land assets to make them fit...
> - For simplicity, lets make their movement instantaneous. They can
> basically be placed on any square of the map for loading/unloading. -
> - Each side has a global variable call AA strength that would
> determine the likelyhood of the unit taking damage during that instant
> move. You could modify this based on something like % of AA units
> damaged during a scenario.
> - Once they're in position to load/unload, they're treated as any
> other unit for the sake of incoming fire.
Hmmm. Does this then mean that a player might have empty/unloaded
helicopter-counters "flying" about the map? That makes me a little
uneasy, the same way piles of "truck" counters crawling over the map
makes me uneasy; a gamey-inclined player might decide to enfranchise a
few impromptu "Helicopter Reconaissance Sections" after his airmobile
units were placed.
If we're going to model helicopters as actual units - instead of an
abstracted mobility asset which can be assigned to specific airmobile-
capable infantry units - we need to take pains to ensure that we're not
serving players their own handy-dandy airforces to be used for <least
favorite gamey tactic here>.
I think it would make more sense to add "Airmobile Move" and "Airmobile
Assault" to the button-bars of some infantry units (ie, those with
airmobile training and in position to be airlifted), let the player set
the timing and doctrine of the move/assault, and have the infantry
counters execute the maneuver (and take casualties by "chopperload" and
with a helicopter's vulnerability) on-map, once they're "down" reverting
to standard leg infantry mode.
> >How do we model gunships/attack helos?
>
> Basically the same way. They can be placed anywhere on the map, are
> subject to the global AA fire during that move and are subject to
> standard fire rules once they're in position. When in position,
> they're treated as standard direct fire units.
This might depend on the doctrine, era, and weapon being modeled. I
think the gunships might have to be represented as on-map units -
instead of just an "airstrike" that comes and goes - but I'm a little
nervous about how much control the player should have over them. Some
situations might call for the gunships to be fully-player-controlled
assets that hang around and blast away as long as they've got ammo. But
my suspicion is that there are as many situations where the attack
helicopters should be modeled as a lot closer to a come-and-go airstrike
than a flying tank section the player can move around as he likes.
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hmmm. Does this then mean that a player might have empty/unloaded
>helicopter-counters "flying" about the map?
No
> That makes me a little
>uneasy, the same way piles of "truck" counters crawling over the map
>makes me uneasy; a gamey-inclined player might decide to enfranchise a
>few impromptu "Helicopter Reconaissance Sections" after his airmobile
>units were placed.
Think of helicopters as being held in an off-map area when not in use.
The scenario designer has 4 variables he can play with for the
helicopter units:
- Number of uses (before it disappears)
- Time to target: the time between when you order in a helicopter unit
and when it arrives
- Refueling time - The time between when a helicopter leaves a map and
when it becomes available again.
- Max time over target- this one if for gunship and scouts, not
transports.
A transport unit wouldn't actually have a move order. Just a load and
unload. The sequence would go something like this:
- Player orders a transport out of the pool with a 'pick up' order.
- After the delay, unit appears and picks up your land assets.
- Player gives the transport a 'drop' order
- Unit goes to the destination and drops off the land asset
- Upon completion, unit automatically withdraws to the off-map area
You'd need an option to also have land assets start out as loaded.
>If we're going to model helicopters as actual units - instead of an
>abstracted mobility asset which can be assigned to specific airmobile-
>capable infantry units - we need to take pains to ensure that we're not
>serving players their own handy-dandy airforces to be used for <least
>favorite gamey tactic here>.
>
>I think it would make more sense to add "Airmobile Move" and "Airmobile
>Assault" to the button-bars of some infantry units (ie, those with
>airmobile training and in position to be airlifted), let the player set
>the timing and doctrine of the move/assault, and have the infantry
>counters execute the maneuver (and take casualties by "chopperload" and
>with a helicopter's vulnerability) on-map, once they're "down" reverting
>to standard leg infantry mode.
I think what I'm proposing isn't too far off from what you're
describing. My way would have the advantage of limiting your transport
assets and make it easier to have different types of transports.
I'm picturing an 'extraction' scenario where you have to get your land
assets out in steps, with the enemy closing in as your ground forces
dwindle. Not possible with the model you describe.
>> >How do we model gunships/attack helos?
>>
>> Basically the same way. They can be placed anywhere on the map, are
>> subject to the global AA fire during that move and are subject to
>> standard fire rules once they're in position. When in position,
>> they're treated as standard direct fire units.
>
>This might depend on the doctrine, era, and weapon being modeled. I
>think the gunships might have to be represented as on-map units -
>instead of just an "airstrike" that comes and goes - but I'm a little
>nervous about how much control the player should have over them. Some
>situations might call for the gunships to be fully-player-controlled
>assets that hang around and blast away as long as they've got ammo. But
>my suspicion is that there are as many situations where the attack
>helicopters should be modeled as a lot closer to a come-and-go airstrike
>than a flying tank section the player can move around as he likes.
Given the variables that I described above, it would be pretty easy to
model both. If you want a one type strike, you model that division of
Hinds with 1 use and a relatively short time over target. If it's an
attached asset, you give them a long time over target with multiple
uses.
I think the model I described would actually work with any air asset,
not just helicopters.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> I think what I'm proposing isn't too far off from what you're
> describing. My way would have the advantage of limiting your transport
> assets and make it easier to have different types of transports.
So long as I don't end up playing against some jamoche who can organize
his slicks into some kind of "Suicide Recon Squads," then I'm not
particular.
> I'm picturing an 'extraction' scenario where you have to get your land
> assets out in steps, with the enemy closing in as your ground forces
> dwindle. Not possible with the model you describe.
Sure it is. The way I envision it, a single helicopter would be an
object just as a maneuver unit is. I just wouldn't allow transport
helicopters to exist on the board (except briefly as AAA targets on the
way to and from base...) under a player's control apart from the units
they were transporting.
Let's say I've got an infantry company I want to move. I look on the
"air assets available" display and see that I have enough airmobility to
move the units. I access the company HQ (or the individual units, if I
want to micromanage) and - just like I do everything else - select the
"Airmobile Move" icon. Now I select a path to the target, setting
waypoints, etc. A pop-up window tells me the ETA of the helicopters to
pick up the infantry company (and I can increase this, if I want) and
the estimated flight time. I click the usual parameters (facing, aggro,
etc) and exit.
When the helicopters are ready, they appear on the map, fly to the
infantry's position, and start to load up. Once loaded, they fly to the
destination and unload, and then the helicopters head back to base.
The idea is that the player can't move *the helicopters*, he can only
move the infantry *using* the helicopters. This (a) avoids gamey misuse
of the helicopters and (b) closely approximates how the real helicopters
can be used.
For an extraction, I make sure I have enough helicopters (and the game
enforces this, of course...), select the infantry unit, press the "Dust-
Off" icon, note the delay involved (and maybe start praying...), and
select "fastest/quickest/max/rapid/max" or the like. At the appointed
time (or thereabouts...), the helicopters start heading into the LZ,
start taking fire, and (hopefully) start extracting the men.
> >This might depend on the doctrine, era, and weapon being modeled. I
> >think the gunships might have to be represented as on-map units -
> >instead of just an "airstrike" that comes and goes - but I'm a little
> >nervous about how much control the player should have over them. Some
> >situations might call for the gunships to be fully-player-controlled
> >assets that hang around and blast away as long as they've got ammo. But
> >my suspicion is that there are as many situations where the attack
> >helicopters should be modeled as a lot closer to a come-and-go airstrike
> >than a flying tank section the player can move around as he likes.
>
> Given the variables that I described above, it would be pretty easy to
> model both. If you want a one type strike, you model that division of
> Hinds with 1 use and a relatively short time over target. If it's an
> attached asset, you give them a long time over target with multiple
> uses.
Better yet, let the historical reality of the side being modeled
determine if you get a flyable asset that can be directed over time, or
an in-and-out airstrike-type thing.
Basrah...@mailinator.com
Need to give them a "Base Unit" to operate from, this moves like a
heavy truck unit, takes a couple hours to set up. Helo's must return to
this base unit and wait X hours before new mission can be flow (if
going back to exact same on going mission this time is a lot less).
This would limit the 'Flying Tank' problem and would go well with the
engines planing time delay features (on of my favorite features in the
engine). Also restrict change of mission during flight of an on going
mission. Some games let you switch missions from one side of the map to
another with air and helo types, make it go through the planning and
delay process.
John
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sure it is. The way I envision it, a single helicopter would be an
>object just as a maneuver unit is. I just wouldn't allow transport
>helicopters to exist on the board (except briefly as AAA targets on the
>way to and from base...) under a player's control apart from the units
>they were transporting.
>
>Let's say I've got an infantry company I want to move. I look on the
>"air assets available" display and see that I have enough airmobility to
>move the units. I access the company HQ (or the individual units, if I
>want to micromanage) and - just like I do everything else - select the
>"Airmobile Move" icon. Now I select a path to the target, setting
>waypoints, etc. A pop-up window tells me the ETA of the helicopters to
>pick up the infantry company (and I can increase this, if I want) and
>the estimated flight time. I click the usual parameters (facing, aggro,
>etc) and exit.
Not much different (in the end) from what I was proposing and proably
a more elegant way of doing it.
>> Given the variables that I described above, it would be pretty easy to
>> model both. If you want a one type strike, you model that division of
>> Hinds with 1 use and a relatively short time over target. If it's an
>> attached asset, you give them a long time over target with multiple
>> uses.
>
>Better yet, let the historical reality of the side being modeled
>determine if you get a flyable asset that can be directed over time, or
>an in-and-out airstrike-type thing.
6 of one... :p
How is that any different from leaving it up to the scenario designer?
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Better yet, let the historical reality of the side being modeled
> >determine if you get a flyable asset that can be directed over time, or
> >an in-and-out airstrike-type thing.
>
> 6 of one... :p
> How is that any different from leaving it up to the scenario designer?
I guess it's not. But it does mean that the game engine might need to
accept a wide variety of "gunship doctrine" models, depending on how
limited (or not) the scope of the game ends up. I suspect there are
significant differences in how gunships are called in, coordinate with
the ground forces, and are commanded from nation to nation and from time
to time.
splu...@gmail.com
I was going to mention Taiwan too. Other possibilities:
* India-Pakistan?
* India-China? (Less likely, but who knows?)
* Something in the SW Pacific (lots of litorral nations, might fit in
with smaller COTA-ish scenarios, but might also need strong naval
component?)
* Hypothetical mid-'80s Argentina-Brazil? (Assume the junta hadn't
kicked off Falklands in '82)
Heh--some pretty obscure possibilities that remind me of S&T games,
might not fit in with the idea of "Third World battles aren't of
interest to the bulk of wargamers."
Personally, I would dearly love any Falklands games but agree the
current engine doesn't really apply to that setting (have yet to try my
copy of the Shrapnel/ProSim take on the war, so don't know how they've
handled it).
Arjuna
use a 100m MoveGrid and this limits us to around 2,000 sq km or 50 x
40km maps. At 250m per MoveGrid we could cover battle areas of 12,500
sq km or 125 x 100km.
Arjuna
Currently most units are Company level with specialist platoons. Given
the dispersed nature of modern warfare, it might be worth dropping down
to Platoon level? What do others think?
Frank E
If you use something similar to the HTTR engine, I think company level
would be better. Not because I prefer that scale, but just because I
think it would work better with the engine.
Rgds, Frank
Oleg Mastruko
Please no platoons. The thought of having to micromanage
platoons in what is after all operational lev el game, makes me
shudder. Specialist platoons a la HTTR etc. one can live with, but not
more than that.
O.
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >Currently most units are Company level with specialist platoons. Given
> >the dispersed nature of modern warfare, it might be worth dropping down
> >to Platoon level? What do others think?
>
> If you use something similar to the HTTR engine, I think company level
> would be better. Not because I prefer that scale, but just because I
> think it would work better with the engine.
Agreed. 100%
But my thoughts about altering the HTTR engine to encompass modern
actions is sorta tempered by my feeling (frankly based on nothing more
than a gut instinct...) that HTTR, as currently constituted, hits a
"sweet spot" between engine, and scale, and scenario, and system.
As a WW2 simulation - specifically a Market-Garden parachute infantry
simulation - HTTR just appears to get most things right. That ancient
adage ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it!") seems particularly
appropriate to HTTR. In other words, I would much rather see the
current engine extended to take in the realities of modern weapons and
current dispersions, rather than radically changed based on ... what,
exactly? A design sense that bigger maps and smaller units is called
for?
Speaking for myself, I'm persuaded that we need to wait and see what
COTA is going to bring.
Werewolf
> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in another thread, we're kicking off our new Modern
> Warfare Data Design Team (DDT) to help design a modern warfare game
> based on our Airborne Assault game engine. We will be referring to this
> series as Command Ops.
>
> The game will essentially focus on operational land warfare. At this
> stage we intend increasing our ground scale to 250m per moveGrid and we
> may lower the base unit from a company to platoon ( though that is
> still moot ). The first order of business will be to determine the
> scope of the game - ie what time period, battle ( actual or
> hypothetical ), location, sides, force structures etc.
>
> We'd love to hear for you if you have some condtructive ideas.
>
NATO vs Warsaw Pact circa 1989 just before the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Rather than endure the problems that led to the collapse the
Soviets gin up a reason to attack western europe.
Campaign opportunities are myriad...
1. Fall of Germany and loss of US forces, battle must be won in France
2. Soviets nail down western europe alla Germany 1940 - think D-Day 1995
3. Last stand on the Rhine - for either NATO or the pact
4. NATO crushes the initial attack and counterattacks into Eastern Europe
and so on and on and on...
Totally balanced if done right - soviet numerical superiority vs nato
tech superiority.
Political aspects of such a war would be nice as well as modeling in the
abstract the War in the Atlantic which would make or break NATO
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>Oleg, I travelled through Croatia a couple years after the war - I've
>seen a couple of villages near the Bosnian border (up from Senj) that
>were completely deserted and where you could visibly see that the
>civilian houses had been the target of destruction. There's one (1) such
>village in France (Oradour) that the Germans destroyed and they turned
>it into a monument. The sad truth is that it happened regularly all over
>the former Yugoslav republic, by all parties.
Oradour-sur-Glane was not only destroyed, but its inhabitants were
rounded up in church and burned alive.
All sides in war in former Yugoslavia commited crimes against civilian
population, but to say that "Oradours" (as destroying the villages and
murdering entire population) were happening regularly all over former
Yugoslavia would be too much. Srebrenica certainly stands above all
such crimes, but as Oleg already pointed to you, wargamers happily
play Germans in the Eastern front without "Massacre Jews in Baby Yar"
button or "murder all patients in the hospital to make room for German
wounded" option when <insert Russian city> is captured.
To return to the wargaming subject, most of 1991-1995 war resembles
Iraq-Iran war rather than modern conflicts. There was plenty of
trenches (the common phrase describing the term of service in the war
is "He was in trenches for months"), artillery fire on preplotted
targets, but little offensive movements unless the defense was too
weak or about to retreat.
Drax