|
Post by danzig70 on Apr 6, 2011 17:08:38 GMT 1
Just trying to get a feel for what people like in a mission.
Do you prefer to have units already placed at the beginning of the mission or do you prefer to place them yourself and have time to do so before the enemy attacks? (or you attack) How much time would you want to place them?
I might have other questions too.
|
|
|
Post by altheogre on Apr 6, 2011 18:32:14 GMT 1
I prefer the units already placed with a couple of minuites before the action starts, to re-deploy or entrench as necessary.
|
|
Folgore
General
(Once) BK Translator
Posts: 1,431
|
Post by Folgore on Apr 6, 2011 19:31:44 GMT 1
Units already placed and at least five minutes to make some adjustments or placing some mines. Displaying a timer would be a nice idea.
|
|
|
Post by danzig70 on Apr 6, 2011 19:44:12 GMT 1
The time can be shown, no problem.
Also, I was thinking of a campaign where you start with a platoon or company and as you gain rank you control more units. For example, start with an infantry company with just riflemen, mortors and machine guns or start as an artillery battery, or mech/armored platoon.
Or do you want to control tanks, infantry and artillery from the beginning?
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Apr 7, 2011 2:48:07 GMT 1
It depends. If the player is playing a specific scenario which calls for an immediate attack (friendly or foe), and forces the player to act in the midst of battle, there are situations where that is useful.
Other times, it is good to let the player deploy his troops as he likes, giving him some area to maneuver and reorganize. However, make sure the enemy has some kind of grip on him- armored groups, artillery, and/or aircraft to prevent him from taking advantage of the less intelligent AI.
|
|
bb
General
Blitzkrieg junkie (tried to quit several times).
Posts: 1,361
|
Post by bb on Apr 7, 2011 4:17:28 GMT 1
In maps there is not an "Iron Rule", IMO, it depends on time, enemy strong and so on...
but this is a good topic.
|
|
Folgore
General
(Once) BK Translator
Posts: 1,431
|
Post by Folgore on Apr 7, 2011 8:52:45 GMT 1
A career campaign is a good idea. I would also add some punishment if you fail too much ;D
|
|
|
Post by LouisXIV on Apr 7, 2011 12:01:42 GMT 1
Folgore, I think you should have made this a poll. That way people who never post can at least click an answer and you will have more input. I was thinking of doing that for you, but apparently I can't.
Meanwhile, I will say I particularly dislike defensive games where you are given a set position and the enemy starts attacking almost immediately. This gives me nothing - or almost nothing - to do, and I don't feel that it is me who is playing it. I have created a couple of missions in the past where you are given a large map, an excess of engineering trucks, you have roughly ten minutes (no counter showing; when did real-life commanders have a timer on when their enemy would attack) and you have to prepare a position against an attack of unknown strength from an unknown direction. I feel that's more realistic - and more interesting.
I also enjoyed von Osten's 32 x 32 no-objective Ardennes mini-campaign mission, where you had forces, a full-size map, and you didn't know if you were going to be attacked or you had to do the attacking. What did I do? Sent out reconnaissance and started digging in. It turned out it was the right thing to do as the German heavy armour started rolling in.
|
|
Folgore
General
(Once) BK Translator
Posts: 1,431
|
Post by Folgore on Apr 7, 2011 12:55:16 GMT 1
LouisXIV: I think it's at wish of Danzig70 to turn this topic into a poll. After all he started the thing. I think that Danzig70 wasn't talking only about defensive missions. Some time could be useful to set your troops differently from the start position so that you can try different tactics if the first try fails. BTW, you are quite right about no timer in real life, but a clever spy could tell you when exactly the enemy starts operations so counting ten minutes backward should not be so much unreal The vonosten's map is a temptation, but I have to get rid of Operation Sea Lion first ;D
|
|
|
Post by danzig70 on Apr 7, 2011 17:11:01 GMT 1
Good input! Keep it coming.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to have prepared defenses around the home land boundaries and if (when) you advance into France or Poland or Soviet Union you will have to prepare your own defenses.
Any thoughts on the unit makeup? If I remember correctly, there are a maximum of 12 units to "keep". Personally, I am opposed to having heavy artillery in an infantry or mech/armor unit and dont like seeing them brought up to the front lines. I certainly see the benefit of having units though. And the front lines can definately move to the artillery positions.
But thats why I started this topic, to see other people's opinion! Perhaps if I can get the artillery barrage aircraft type to work, being able to call artillery strikes would suffice?
Let me know. Its a large war, with something for everyone.
No poll is necessary. I like to hear people's discussion.
|
|
|
Post by LouisXIV on Apr 8, 2011 12:40:05 GMT 1
LouisXIV: I think that Danzig70 wasn't talking only about defensive missions. Some time could be useful to set your troops differently from the start position so that you can try different tactics if the first try fails. My particular bee-in-the-bonnet is about defensive missions. With offensive missions, you have the initiative and can often rearrange your troops the way you want to, to improve your position. There have been some missions I have enjoyed where your troops are in groups that are well separated, sometimes by enemy. My first priority is to find the way to get them all in one location. Attacking the enemy's main position piece-meal is a rather silly thing to do. Getting them together is usually the hard part. Once they are assembled the mission usually becomes pretty simple.
If a commander has all arms to work with, he has many different choices on how to proceed. If his opponent also has all arms to work with, then the mission can be a big enough "puzzle" for everyone.
Missions that annoy me are missions where you have incomplete or inadequate forces. If a commander is going to attack, does he scrape up 6 tanks and 3 squads and say, "Here, go wipe out that enemy division." No, if a WWII commander was going to attack an enemy division, he would assemble at least three of his own. (Standard tennent since Napoleon's time: you need a 3-to-1 ration if your attack is going to have a chance to succeed. 10-to-1 if the enemy's position is heavily fortified.)
The essense of WWII combat - which the Germans figured out beforehand and the Allies slowly learned - is that you attack with all arms working together. Attacking with only armour and infantry with no artillery or air support may make for a tricky mission, but it is very unrealistic. It smacks of "Here is a puzzle for you to solve." I find that annoying. If I want puzzles, I'll go to a puzzle website.
I'm an historian and a professional writer. ("An Inadvertant Rise to Power" about Charles de Gaulle in WWII History Magazine coming next year.) I play this game as the best grand-tactical historical recreation I have found. The game is reasonably realistic. Why can't the missions be so too?
|
|
Folgore
General
(Once) BK Translator
Posts: 1,431
|
Post by Folgore on Apr 8, 2011 15:06:47 GMT 1
I'm an historian and a professional writer...And a professsional BK player, I would add ;D ;D This is the point, Louis, you know tips and trips and tactics very well but can we take for granted that every BK player here around knows those things as well as you? Sure, you are right when you say "attacking piece-meal is silly" but why we shouldn't let people learn this on their own? When you say: "I have enjoyed where your troops are in groups that are well separated, sometimes by enemy. My first priority is to find the way to get them all in one location" I agree with you, but what if a player doesn't find the only one correct way to regroup his troops after lots of tries? The game will collect dust for years. Hence my proposal to have things a bit easier. When Danzig says that there is something for everyone I mean that there is also something even for absolute beginners. Otherwise this game will turn out to be only a club for a few knowing everything about tactics and strategies. Nothing wrong on that, but do we want it really? danzig70: You are right only 12 core units are allowed as far as I know. Maybe that somebody with experience on the engine game (MP?) could solve this problem. Long range artillery. Well, if you have a 6x6 map you don't need that but a 32x32 map without it would be absurd. By rule of thumb, you could allow long range artillery starting from 16x16 map and after some esperience gained. In a career campaign scheme you could start with a 4x4 map containing a platoon commander with one or two AT gun and ending with a gorgeous 32x32 map having Fieldmarshalls and big artillery. BTW is it possible to make maps bigger than 32x32?
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Apr 8, 2011 16:20:20 GMT 1
There are several examples where more than 12 core units have been employed. The core units are generally separated by tanks and artillery...of course. I haven't explored this too much but I don't see anything that limits the number. Based on my earlier research, base maps are limited to 32x32 in the editor. But if you go back and read what I posted on the subject, it is possible to increase the size in xml form if you remember to follow the hex-decimal code sequences. blitzsrbija.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bkgeneral&action=display&thread=761I appreciate the vote of confidence as to the game engine, but there is still a lot of mystery as to some of the hard-coded aspects. As much as I know about it, there is much more that I don't. I am sure that someone will finally break the codes at some point. Quoting kaoz: " this is pure rocket science! "
|
|
|
Post by danzig70 on Apr 8, 2011 17:03:07 GMT 1
I like to read the articles at lonesentry.com that has US and German manuals on tactics to script the AI. It adds realism and is educational at the same time. Especially when it comes to fire positions.
My only gripe is that if the player is playing as a company commander in an infantry regiment, how much control would he have over artillery positions.
I did find this however, FM 6-20: Tactical Employment:
77. POSITIONS.
a. General. Artillery positions in offensive combat are located well forward, to exploit the range of the weapons and to facilitate cohesion of command posts of supporting and supported units. A field artillery battalion usually occupies a position in the zone of action of the unit it supports. Artillery that has been attached to a corps or division and that will revert upon reaching the limit of its range from initial positions, is usually emplaced farthest forward.
So perhaps I am wrong. While I may not make them core units, I will have artillery available for the player to control.
For the 10.5cm leFH German field gun as an example, wikipedia lists the maximum range as 10 km. Does anyone know their effective range? How far the typical range would be?
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Apr 8, 2011 17:33:26 GMT 1
|
|